Editorial policies


Articles go through a two-stage process of internal review. The Editor-in-Chief first assesses articles for compliance with anonymisation and length requirements. Non-compliance may result in desk rejection. Next, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the submission to a member of the Editorial Board to evaluate whether the article should proceed to peer review. A decision of desk reject may be made at this stage if the language or content of the article are not considered of sufficient standard.

If the paper is considered of sufficient quality after the internal review stage, it will go forward to double blind peer review by at least two referees. To facilitate this, authors are required to submit an anonymised manuscript. Reviewers will be independent experts in the subject matter of the submitted article. Reviewers’ reports will be scrutinised by the relevant Editor who will make the editorial decision, based on a critical evaluation of the peer review reports and reviewers’ recommendations. 

The peer review reports are sent to the author along with the editorial decision. 

Peer reviewer selection

  • Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for research articles. Where appropriate, editors may seek a third independent peer review.
  • In exceptional circumstances, if it is not possible to secure two independent peer reviews, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or request that another member of the Editorial Board provide a second review. 
  • The editorial board reserves the right to send revised submissions out for peer review a second time.
  • Manuscripts that do not report research findings, such as practice reports, are reviewed first by a member of the Editorial Board who will decide on a case by case basis whether external peer review is required. 

Conflict of interest

Should an Editorial Board member be listed as an author or have a conflicting interest in a manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to handle internal and peer review.

Editors will not select as peer reviewers:

  • referees from the same institution as the author(s); 
  • known recent close collaborators of the author(s); 
  • known close friends or family members of the author(s).

Before accepting to review a submission, reviewers are requested to notify the Editor of any potential conflict of interest. If in the process of working with the manuscript the existence of a conflict of interest or circumstances that may not allow the peer reviewer to perform the peer-review objectively and impartially is discovered, the peer reviewer must notify the Editor immediately.



Plagiarism, i.e. the appropriation and/or presentation of thoughts, ideas, inventions or work of others as your own, is deeply unethical, and will not be tolerated. It is therefore very important that all sources are presented appropriately in the ways presented in our guidelines. Please note that you must state the source even if you quote indirectly or paraphrase the work of someone else, and regardless if the source of the original is in written, spoken, online or other form. We also demand that you avoid self-plagiarism, i.e. presenting work previously published by yourself somewhere else without stating the source, as that implies that this is new work, and violates the copyright of the original publisher. 

As of 2023, all articles submitted to JAT will be routinely screened for plagiarism through iThenticate.