Review Process

Peer Review Procedure

The Journal of Applied Engineering Science and Technology (JAEST) uses a double-blind peer review process for all research and review articles. Under this system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their suitability for the journal, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, compliance with the author guidelines, and basic ethical and scientific requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are generally requested to complete their evaluations within 4 to 6 weeks. They assess the scientific quality, originality, methodology, significance, clarity, ethical compliance, and overall contribution of the manuscript.

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

When revisions are required, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to the reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor based on the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the revised manuscript, and its compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

Reviewers Appreciation

We recognize that reviewing a manuscript is both a valuable and time-consuming academic responsibility. The commitment of our reviewers makes an essential contribution to the scholarly community and to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

The thoughtful evaluation and constructive feedback provided by reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the scientific quality and editorial standards of JAEST. We sincerely appreciate reviewers who contribute their expertise, independence, and professional judgment to the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

JAEST is grateful for the dedication of its reviewers and for their invaluable contribution to the quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to observe the following responsibilities:

  • Objectivity: Provide an impartial and fair assessment of the manuscript, focusing on its scientific quality, originality, relevance, and contribution to the field.
  • Timeliness: Complete the review within the requested timeframe. Reviewers who anticipate delays should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.
  • Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and all associated information as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished material without authorization from the journal.
  • Constructive Feedback: Provide clear, respectful, and constructive comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment and should decline the review when appropriate.
  • Ethical Considerations: Inform the journal of any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct.
  • Adherence to Journal Guidelines: Ensure that the evaluation considers the journal's editorial policies, reviewer guidelines, and scientific standards.

By fulfilling these responsibilities, reviewers contribute to the integrity, fairness, and quality of the peer review process and assist authors in improving their scholarly work.

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following aspects:

  • Originality: Determine whether the manuscript presents original research, ideas, methods, analyses, or findings that contribute new knowledge to the field.
  • Research Question and Objectives: Assess whether the research question and objectives are clearly defined, scientifically relevant, and appropriately addressed.
  • Methodology: Evaluate whether the methodology and study design are appropriate, sufficiently described, scientifically rigorous, and reproducible where applicable.
  • Results: Assess the accuracy, clarity, consistency, and presentation of the results, and determine whether they adequately support the conclusions.
  • Discussion and Conclusions: Evaluate whether the interpretation of the results is scientifically sound and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.
  • References: Verify that the references are relevant, appropriate, sufficiently current, and properly connected to the subject of the manuscript.
  • Clarity and Structure: Assess the clarity of the writing, logical organization, scientific presentation, and overall readability of the manuscript.
  • Ethical Considerations: Evaluate whether appropriate ethical standards have been followed and whether relevant ethical approvals, informed consent statements, funding information, and conflict-of-interest declarations are provided when applicable.
  • Contribution to the Field: Assess the scientific significance of the study and its potential contribution to the advancement of knowledge, engineering practice, or technology.
  • Compliance with Journal Guidelines: Check whether the manuscript complies with the journal's formatting, structure, submission, and publication requirements.
  • Authorship and Contribution: Where relevant, identify concerns regarding authorship, contributor recognition, acknowledgements, or possible inappropriate attribution.
  • Overall Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation supported by constructive and objective comments for both the authors and the Editor.

Confidentiality of the Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to JAEST are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share manuscripts, review reports, data, figures, or unpublished information with third parties without prior authorization from the journal. Information obtained through the peer review process must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or academic relationship that could reasonably be perceived as affecting the impartiality of their review. When a significant conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation to review the manuscript.

Reviewer Recognition

As a token of appreciation for their contribution, JAEST provides reviewers with a Certificate of Reviewing reflecting the number of reviews they have completed for the journal.