Review Process

1. Purpose and Scope

BAJU: Journal of Fashion and Textile Design Unesa conducts peer review to safeguard the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of articles in fashion and textile design. This policy covers research articles, creative practice articles, conceptual contributions, design explorations, and creative works or innovations that fall within the journal’s focus and scope. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and experimental research are assessed according to the characteristics of their respective approaches.

Peer review aims to assist editors in determining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication while providing authors with actionable feedback. Decisions are based on the quality of the manuscript, rather than the authors’ institutional affiliations, academic positions, or personal characteristics.

2. Peer Review Model and Anonymity

The journal applies double-blind peer review: authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are not members of the editorial team. All scholarly articles, including invited articles and articles submitted to special issues, are subject to the same review standards.

Authors must submit a separate title page containing their identifying information. Names, affiliations, acknowledgments that reveal authors’ identities, and file metadata must be removed from the version provided to reviewers. The editor checks anonymization without removing necessary scientific information. Appendices, figures, and supplementary materials that support the conclusions are also reviewed. Review reports are not published alongside the article.

Reviewers must not deliberately seek to identify the authors. If a reviewer becomes aware of an author’s possible identity and this creates a conflict of interest, the reviewer must notify the editor.

3. Submission and Initial Screening

Authors submit manuscripts through BAJU’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform in accordance with the Author Guidelines and the journal’s template. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the completeness of submission documents, the consent of all authors, and the accuracy of the metadata. Manuscripts must not be submitted simultaneously to another journal.

The editor assesses the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, structural completeness, readability, methodological foundations, originality, and ethical documentation or permissions for the use of materials, where relevant. Similarity reports are used as an assessment aid; suspected plagiarism is evaluated based on context and evidence, rather than similarity percentages alone. Such concerns are handled in accordance with the journal’s plagiarism policy. Initial screening may result in the manuscript being returned for revision, rejected with an explanation (desk rejection), or sent to reviewers. Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

4. Selection and Assignment of Reviewers

The editor selects reviewers based on the relevance of their expertise to the manuscript’s topic and methods, their scholarly or professional experience, their independence, and their willingness to complete the review. Prospective reviewers’ identities and expertise are verified. Authors may suggest reviewers or raise reasoned objections to particular candidates; however, the editor is not obliged to follow these suggestions.

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. Affiliation with the same institution as an author, supervisory relationships, recent collaborations, financial interests, or competition that compromises objectivity constitute grounds for declining or reassigning a review. Reviewers who lack sufficient expertise or time must promptly inform the editor. Manuscripts authored by editors, editorial board members, or individuals with close relationships with an editor are handled by another independent editor. Individuals with an interest in the manuscript are excluded from reviewer selection, access to internal editorial processes, and decisions concerning their own manuscripts.

5. Review Criteria and Reports

Reviewers provide evidence-based evaluations using the journal’s review form. The assessment covers the following aspects.

For quantitative or experimental research, reviewers assess measurement, testing designs, and analysis. For qualitative research, attention is given to informant selection, the depth of the data, and the credibility of interpretation. Mixed-methods research is assessed in terms of the integration of its components. Creative practice articles are assessed on the basis of their design rationale, documentation of the stages of creation, and evaluation of the resulting work; conceptual articles are assessed for the rigor of their synthesis and argumentation.

Review reports distinguish between the article’s strengths, major revisions, technical corrections, and recommendations. Comments must be specific, courteous, and indicate the sections that require improvement. Scores on the review form serve as an assessment aid and do not replace judgments concerning quality or integrity. Confidential comments to the editor must be submitted separately from comments intended for the authors.

6. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations, accompanied by reasons consistent with their assessment.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, taking into account the reviewers’ reports, the quality of revisions, and the journal’s policies. Decisions are not determined by adding up scores or by a vote among reviewers. [3]

If recommendations differ substantially or the reports are insufficient, the editor may request clarification, an additional assessment, or a third reviewer. The reasons for the decision are communicated to the authors together with relevant comments, while maintaining anonymity and the confidentiality of the process.

7. Revision and Further Review

Authors must upload the revised manuscript and a response letter addressing each comment in detail. The response must identify the changes made and specify the relevant pages or sections. Authors may decline to follow a particular suggestion if they provide an adequate scientific justification and supporting evidence.

The editor may assess minor revisions directly or ask the reviewers to examine them. Major revisions are returned to the reviewers to assess whether the required improvements have been adequately addressed; replacement reviewers may be appointed when necessary. Additional review rounds are conducted if substantive issues remain unresolved. A manuscript may be rejected if the revisions remain inadequate.

8. Review Timelines and Communication

Reviewer deadlines are specified in the review invitation, while authors’ revision deadlines are stated in the decision letter. Requests for extensions must be submitted before the deadline and include the reasons for the request. The editor issues reminders and may replace reviewers who are unable to complete their assignments.

The duration of the process depends on the completeness of the manuscript, reviewer availability, the complexity of revisions, and the number of review rounds. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or completion of the review within a specific timeframe. Manuscript status updates and communications are managed through OJS or the editorial office’s official channels. [6]

9. Acceptance, Editing, and Publication

Following acceptance, articles undergo copyediting, typesetting, and author proof checking. Substantive changes after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further peer review. Payments, sponsorship, or institutional relationships must not influence scientific decisions. Articles are published after all editorial and production requirements have been fulfilled.

10. Confidentiality, Objectivity, and the Use of Technology

Manuscripts, data, images, correspondence, and review reports are confidential. Reviewers must not share these materials, use them for personal benefit, or involve other individuals without the editor’s permission. Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the review, insist on irrelevant citations, or make personal criticisms.

Manuscripts and confidential materials must not be uploaded to public artificial intelligence (AI) services or third-party services without editorial approval and adequate confidentiality safeguards. Technological assistance does not replace the reviewer’s scientific judgment. Any permitted use must be disclosed to the editor, and reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy of their reports.

Suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, or other violations must be reported to the editor with supporting evidence. Reviewers must not conduct independent investigations. The editor requests clarification and takes further action in accordance with the journal’s research integrity policy. Allegations must not be based solely on writing style or AI-detector scores.

11. Appeals and Complaints Regarding the Review Process

Authors may submit a written appeal against a decision or a complaint about the review process through OJS or the official channels listed on the journal’s Contact page. Submissions must include the manuscript ID, the decision being challenged, scientific reasons or details of a suspected procedural error, and supporting evidence.

Appeals are assessed by an editor who has no conflict of interest and, as far as possible, was not involved in the original decision. Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to the publisher or an appointed independent party. The outcome of the assessment is communicated with reasons; submitting an appeal does not automatically change the original decision.

12. Documentation and Policy Evaluation

The editorial office maintains records of reviewer assignments, conflict-of-interest declarations, review reports, revisions, and decisions in an editorial system with restricted access. The policy is reviewed periodically, and changes are announced on the journal’s website so that authors and reviewers are aware of the applicable procedures.