The Multidisciplinary Journal of Science, Technology, Education and Management (MJSTEM) operates a rigorous peer-review system to ensure that all scholarly articles published in the journal meet appropriate standards of academic quality, methodological soundness, originality, relevance and ethical research practice.

MJSTEM uses a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process, except where disclosure is required by law, ethical investigation, or other legitimate scholarly considerations.

All manuscripts submitted to MJSTEM are first examined by the Editorial Office to determine whether the submission:

1. falls within the scope of the journal;

2. complies with the journal's submission requirements;

3. contains sufficient scholarly content;

4. satisfies basic standards of academic writing and presentation;

5. complies with the journal's ethical requirements;

6. has not been submitted simultaneously to another journal; and

7. contains no apparent evidence of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification or other research misconduct.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor may reject a manuscript without external peer review where it is clearly outside the journal's scope, fails to meet essential submission requirements, lacks sufficient scholarly merit, or presents a significant ethical concern.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Reviewers must have sufficient academic or professional expertise in the subject of the manuscript and must be independent of the authors and their institutions.

A reviewer must decline an assignment where a conflict of interest, personal relationship, institutional relationship, financial interest, recent collaboration, supervisory relationship or other circumstance could reasonably affect the objectivity of the review.

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised member of the editorial team based on:

subject expertise;

relevant research experience;

publication record where appropriate;

methodological competence;

absence of identifiable conflicts of interest; and

availability to provide an objective and timely assessment.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the journal. Suggested reviewers may be used only where the Editorial Office determines that they are suitably qualified and independent.

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to the discipline, including:

originality and contribution to knowledge;

clarity of the research problem and objectives;

adequacy of the literature review;

theoretical or conceptual foundation;

methodological appropriateness;

validity and reliability of the methods where applicable;

quality of analysis;

accuracy and interpretation of findings;

coherence of conclusions;

relevance to the journal's scope;

ethical compliance;

quality of presentation; and

adequacy of references.

Reviewers provide constructive comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Following peer review, the editor may make one of the following decisions: Accept; Accept subject to minor revisions; Revise and resubmit for further review (major revision); or Reject.

Editors may therefore request minor revision, major revision / revise and resubmit for further review, or reject the manuscript.

A manuscript may be returned to the reviewers after revision where the editor considers further assessment necessary.

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated editor. Peer reviewers provide scholarly recommendations, but the final decision remains an editorial responsibility and is not determined solely by a reviewer's recommendation.

Where reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the editor may:

seek clarification from the existing reviewers;

appoint an additional independent reviewer; or

make an editorial decision based on the available evidence and the manuscript's scholarly merits.

The appointment of an additional reviewer does not guarantee acceptance.

Articles submitted for special issues or themed collections are subject to the same quality-control and peer-review requirements as regular submissions.

Guest editors may coordinate the review process, but the Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for ensuring that the journal's peer-review standards are applied consistently.

Editors and editorial board members may submit manuscripts to MJSTEM. Such manuscripts are subject to the same peer-review requirements as manuscripts submitted by other authors.

An editor who is an author of a manuscript must not participate in the editorial decision concerning that manuscript. The manuscript shall be assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not disclose, copy, distribute, use or exploit unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not transfer a manuscript to another person without prior permission from the journal.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, respectful and evidence-based assessments. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and must decline the review where impartiality cannot reasonably be maintained.

MJSTEM maintains appropriate editorial and peer-review records for submitted manuscripts. Review records may be retained for purposes of quality assurance, publication-ethics investigations, appeals, corrections and retractions.

MJSTEM's peer-review process is guided by recognised principles of publication ethics, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal reserves the right to investigate suspected manipulation of the peer-review process, fraudulent reviewer identities, fabricated reviews or other forms of publication misconduct.

MJSTEM endeavours to process manuscripts efficiently while allowing reviewers sufficient time to provide a meaningful scholarly assessment. Review timelines may vary according to subject area, reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and the need for additional review.

Authors may contact the Editorial Office regarding the status of a manuscript where a reasonable period has elapsed without an editorial update.