Peer Review Process
Artechno applies double-anonymous peer review. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript and file properties. The journal normally assigns at least two reviewers with relevant expertise.
Editorial Screening
After submission, the editorial office checks the manuscript’s scope, format, completeness, originality, research integrity, language, and minimum scholarly quality. Manuscripts may be declined before external review when they are outside scope, incomplete, poorly prepared, methodologically inadequate, promotional, previously published, simultaneously submitted elsewhere, or affected by serious ethical concerns.
Reviewer Selection
Editors select reviewers based on subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. Authors may suggest or oppose reviewers with reasons, but the editor retains full authority over reviewer selection.
Review and Decision
Reviewers assess the relevance, originality, theoretical grounding, method, evidence, analysis, discussion, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript. Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation. The editor evaluates the reports and may request further review when reports conflict or do not provide an adequate basis for a decision.
- Accept Submission
- Revisions Required
- Resubmit for Review
- Decline Submission
The final decision is made by the responsible editor. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the decision automatically.
Estimated Timeline
The journal aims to complete the initial editorial screening within 7–14 days and to provide a first decision within approximately 30–45 days. Timeframes may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, required revisions, and ethical checks. The journal does not guarantee a fixed publication date before the editorial process is complete.
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential. They must not use unpublished information for personal advantage. A reviewer or editor must decline involvement when a personal, professional, academic, financial, or institutional relationship could reasonably affect impartiality.
Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned response that identifies a material error in the review or decision process. Disagreement alone is not sufficient. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision where practicable. The outcome of the appeal is final.