All research manuscripts submitted to SaNa: Journal of Blockchain, NFTs and Metaverse Technology undergo editorial screening followed, where appropriate, by independent peer review.
The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review model. Under this system, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the peer-review process.
Preliminary assessment before external peer review.
Each submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the editorial team to determine its suitability for the journal. The assessment considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's Focus & Scope, scholarly contribution, completeness, basic methodological adequacy, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, or unsuitable for further scholarly evaluation may be declined at this stage without external peer review.
Independent scholarly evaluation with mutual anonymity between authors and reviewers.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
SaNa uses a Double-Blind Peer Review process. The manuscript provided to reviewers is prepared so that information identifying the authors is not disclosed, while the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymous evaluation, including avoiding unnecessary self-identifying information within the manuscript or supplementary review materials.
Reviewers are selected primarily on the basis of subject expertise and their ability to provide an independent, objective, and constructive assessment. Where a potential competing interest may affect impartiality, an alternative reviewer should be considered.
Scholarly and technical aspects considered during evaluation.
Relevance to the journal's scope and the significance of the manuscript's contribution to its field.
The extent to which the manuscript presents a clear, meaningful, and sufficiently original scholarly contribution.
Appropriateness and clarity of the research design, methodology, data analysis, experimental procedure, computational approach, or other methods used.
Adequacy of the presented results, consistency between evidence and conclusions, and quality of the scholarly interpretation and discussion.
Logical organization, clarity of presentation, adequacy of tables and figures where applicable, and overall scholarly communication.
Appropriate engagement with relevant literature and clear positioning of the study within the existing body of knowledge.
Principles supporting an independent and confidential review.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and within their area of expertise. Manuscripts and associated materials received for review must be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors during the double-blind review process. Likewise, reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors as part of the standard review workflow.
A reviewer who believes that they cannot provide an impartial assessment, lacks the necessary expertise, or has a competing interest that may affect the review should inform the editorial office and decline the assignment where appropriate.
Review reports inform the editorial decision.
The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to completion of the journal's editorial and production requirements.
Authors are requested to address reviewer and/or editorial comments before a further decision is made.
Substantial revision may require the revised manuscript to undergo another round of peer review.
The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication based on its scholarly evaluation and editorial assessment.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the responsible editor, who considers the reviewer reports, author responses, scholarly quality, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal.
Revised manuscripts remain subject to editorial assessment.
When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response addressing the comments raised during peer review.
Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor or returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance.
Protection of manuscript and review information.
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other materials associated with peer review are treated as confidential within the journal's editorial workflow.
Ethical matters involving publication misconduct, authorship, plagiarism, competing interests, complaints and appeals, or other research-integrity concerns are addressed through the journal's dedicated Publication Ethics and related policies rather than being duplicated within this Peer Review Process.
SaNa maintains mutual anonymity between authors and reviewers during peer review to support independent scholarly assessment, reduce potential sources of bias, and preserve the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial evaluation process.
Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 
