Information For Reviewers

About Peer Review in IJASS

The members of the scientific community who serve as peer reviewers for International Journal of Advanced Engineering are essential to ensuring the quality of the articles published in the journal. They perform an invaluable service to the entire community of science. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system.

Only some of the papers submitted to the International Journal of Advanced Social Sciences (IJASS) are reviewed in depth. For the in-depth review, at least two outside referees are consulted. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within a month for most papers. Reviewers may be selected to evaluate separate components of a manuscript. We only ask the original reviewers of a manuscript to re-review the revised version if we believe the paper has been significantly improved but still requires expert review. The final responsibility for decisions of acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts lies with the editors.

The review process is conducted anonymously; International Journal of Advanced Engineering never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Advisory Board.

Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. Disinterested evaluation. Reviews should be objective assessments of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review, and you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments. Likewise, if, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review.
  2. Considerate, useful comments. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; Science Robotics reserves the right to edit comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts.
  3. Timeliness. Just as you wish prompt evaluations of your own research, please return your reviews within the time period specified when you were asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, please inform the editor at the time of the request.
  4. Confidentiality. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors’ specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).
  5. Anonymity. The review process is conducted anonymously; Science never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Advisory Board.
  6. Editorial Policies. You should be aware of IJASS’s policies for authors regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.

Rating the Manuscript

All reviewers should follow the following aspects to rate the manuscript:

  1. Originality/Novelty. The research work should be original and well defined.
  2. Significance: All the results should be interpreted appropriately and significant. The conclusion should be justified and supported by the results.
  3. Quality of Presentation: The article should be written in an appropriate way and all the resulted data are analyzed and presented appropriately.
  4. Scientific Soundness: The research work should be correctly designed and technically sound. The methods, tools, software, etc should be described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results.
  5. Interest to the Readers: The work should be interesting for the readership.
  6. English Level: The English language should be appropriate and understandable.
  7. Plagiarism: The reviewer should check the plagiarism using the relevant tool.

Overall Recommendation 

All reviewers should provide an overall recommendation for the publication for the manuscript as follows:

  1. Accept (in present form): The paper is accepted without any further changes.
  2. Accept (after minor revision): The paper is principally accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comment. Authors are given FIVE days for minor revisions.
  3. Accept (after major revision): The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within FIFTEEN days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
  4. Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Peer Review Process:

  • Single-blind review: In this review, the reviewer’s name is not disclosed to the author.
  • double-blind review: In this review, the reviewer’s identity is not disclosed to the author.
  • Triple-blind review: The reviewers are anonymous and the author’s identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor.
  • Open review: No identities are concealed; author and reviewer names are disclosed.