JES operates a double-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers do not know the names or affiliations of the authors and the reviewer reports provided to the authors are anonymous. Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on the author’s country of origin or previous controversial work. Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation. Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published work, and whether the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. Reviewers will also be asked to indicate how interesting and significant the research is. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. JES journal is committed to providing an efficient service for both, authors, and readers. Our blind peer-review system along with the editorial board of independent editors provides a mean of rapid and fair publication decisions.

Peer-review policy is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance to help editors determine whether the manuscript should be published in their journal. Peer review exists to ensure that journals publish good science. This benefits the entire scientific community. Sometimes scientists find the peer review process intimidating because it can lead to the rejection of their manuscript. Keep in mind that revisions and improvement are part of the publication process and help raise the quality of your manuscript. Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they review-they offer authors free advice. Through the peer review process, manuscripts should become:

• More robust: Peer reviewers may point out gaps in your paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.
• Easier to read: If parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can tell you so that you can fix them.
• More useful: Peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.

Of course, in addition to offering authors advice, another important purpose of peer review is to make sure that the manuscripts the journal eventually publishes are of high quality. If a journal publishes too many low-quality manuscripts, its reputation and number of readers will decline.

Editorial rejection: Your journal manuscript can be rejected if it:

• Lacks proper structure
• Lacks the necessary detail for readers to fully understand the authors' analysis
• Has no new science
• Does not clearly explain which parts of the findings are new science, versus what was already known
• Lacks up-to-date references
• Contains theories, concepts, or conclusions that are not fully supported by its data, arguments, and information
• Does not provide enough details about materials and methods to allow other scientists to repeat the experiment
• Lacks clear descriptions or explanations of: Hypotheses tested, the experimental design, Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics
• Describes poor experimental design, or faulty or insufficient statistical analysis
• Has poor language quality 
• The journal has a strict policy against plagiarism. All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using professional plagiarism-checking software. Submitted manuscripts with an unacceptable similarity index resulting from plagiarism are rejected immediately.

Publication is a difficult process, and you must be prepared to defend your submission against rejection from both editors and peer reviewers.

Editorial Revising: When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments:

• Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers
• Describe the revisions to your manuscript in your response letter
• Perform any additional experiments or analyses the reviewers recommend
• Provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any points or comments you disagree with
• Differentiate between reviewer comments and your responses in your letter
• Clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature
• Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the period the editor tells you