NJTAI is committed to ensuring a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process that maintains the highest standards of scholarly quality and research integrity.

• Initial Editorial Screening: All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation to assess completeness, relevance to the journal's scope, originality, ethical compliance, readability, and minimum methodological quality. Manuscripts that clearly fail to meet these requirements may be rejected without proceeding to external peer review.
• Review Model: NJTAI employs a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the review process.
• Reviewer Assignment: Each eligible manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest and agree to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process.
• Review Criteria: Reviewers assess manuscripts based on their originality and significance, technical and methodological soundness, evidence supporting trustworthy AI claims, transparency and reproducibility, ethical and societal considerations, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

• Editorial Decisions: Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's evaluation, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

  The Editor retains full responsibility for the final publication decision.

• Revision Process: Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit both a clean revised version and a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed or, where appropriate, respectfully rebutted. Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
• Review Timeline: The editorial office aims to complete the initial editorial screening within 7–14 days, while the external peer-review process is generally completed within 3–6 weeks. More complex or highly specialized submissions may require additional review time.
• Appeals and Complaints: Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe an editorial decision involved factual or procedural errors. Appeals are evaluated independently where appropriate; however, the submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be reversed.