Editorial Quality Assurance
Peer Review Process
NexaAssist Journal of Inclusive Technology (NAJIT)
Review Model
Double-Blind Peer Review
NexaAssist Journal of Inclusive Technology (NAJIT) applies a double-blind peer-review process to manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to support objective, independent, and impartial evaluation.
Manuscripts are assessed for originality, methodological rigor, technological relevance, research integrity, and scholarly contribution. Particular attention is given to research addressing assistive technology, digital accessibility, inclusive educational technology, and disability-related technological innovation.
Review Workflow
01
Manuscript Submission
Authors submit manuscripts through the NAJIT online submission system in accordance with the journal's author guidelines, article template, and submission requirements. The review file must be anonymized.
02
Administrative and Technical Check
The Editorial Team examines manuscript completeness, formatting, authorship information, references, ethical declarations, supporting files, and compliance with submission requirements.
03
Editorial Scope Screening
The Editor evaluates whether the manuscript substantively addresses assistive technology, digital accessibility, or inclusive educational technology and identifies a meaningful disability-related need or accessibility barrier.
04
Originality and Research Integrity Check
The manuscript is examined for originality, appropriate citation, possible duplication, plagiarism concerns, research ethics, and compliance with responsible publication practices.
05
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts passing editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's technological, educational, accessibility, and methodological dimensions.
06
Double-Blind External Review
Reviewers independently evaluate originality, research design, data quality, analytical rigor, technological contribution, accessibility, usability, and relevance to disability inclusion. Review articles are assessed for methodological transparency and the quality of evidence synthesis.
07
Author Revision
Authors address reviewer and editor comments, revise the manuscript, and submit a clear point-by-point response explaining how each substantive concern has been addressed. Additional review rounds may be required.
08
Final Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief considers reviewer reports, author responses, methodological quality, ethical integrity, scope alignment, and scientific contribution before making the final publication decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, production, proofreading, and publication.
Mandatory Desk Review Criteria
Before external peer review, manuscripts must satisfy the following requirements:
01. The manuscript concerns assistive technology, digital accessibility, or inclusive educational technology.
02. It identifies a disability-related need, accessibility barrier, or inclusive participation challenge.
03. The manuscript presents original research or a rigorous scholarly review consistent with the journal's article categories.
04. The research methods, technological approach, and supporting evidence are appropriate to the study's objectives.
05. The manuscript demonstrates a clear scientific or practical contribution to disability-inclusive technology.
Reviewer Assessment Criteria
Originality and Innovation
Novelty, relevance, and contribution of the research question, technology, approach, or evidence.
Accessibility and Inclusion
Clarity of accessibility needs, disability relevance, inclusive design, and user participation.
Methodological Rigor
Appropriateness of research design, participants, instruments, analysis, and validity.
Technology Evaluation
Quality of technical evaluation, usability, accessibility testing, and effectiveness, where applicable.
Results and Interpretation
Accuracy, transparency, analytical consistency, and appropriate interpretation of findings.
Scholarly Contribution
Contribution to assistive technology, digital accessibility, or inclusive educational practice.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accept
Accepted for publication
Minor Revision
Limited revision required
Major Revision
Substantive revision required
Reject
Not suitable for publication
Final Editorial Authority
Reviewer recommendations provide essential scholarly input but do not independently determine publication. The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors retain responsibility for editorial decisions after considering reviewer evaluations, author responses, manuscript quality, scope compliance, and publication ethics.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
All manuscripts, review reports, unpublished research data, technological designs, and editorial communications are confidential. Reviewers and editors must declare actual or potential conflicts of interest and avoid participating in evaluations where impartiality may reasonably be compromised.
Principles of Peer Review
The peer-review process of NexaAssist Journal of Inclusive Technology (NAJIT) is guided by independence, confidentiality, fairness, methodological rigor, scholarly integrity, constructive evaluation, and freedom from conflicts of interest. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and relevance to the journal's scope, without discrimination based on disability, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, religion, or personal background.
Peer Review Flow
Submission → Technical Check → Scope Screening → Integrity Check → Double-Blind Review → Revision → Editorial Decision → Publication