Peer Review Policy

Overview

The Journal of Applied Science and Advanced Engineering (JASAE) applies a double-anonymized peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential during review. To support this process, authors are required to submit an anonymized manuscript file without names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that may reveal the authors’ identities. Any identifying information will be added during the production stage after the manuscript has been accepted.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated carefully and as efficiently as possible without compromising the quality and integrity of the review process. Reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the handling Editor, who evaluates the manuscript and reviewer reports before making an editorial recommendation. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editorial authority.

The peer review process focuses on the quality, originality, validity, and relevance of the submitted work. Particular attention is given to the appropriateness of the research methodology, the accuracy of the analysis, the clarity of the discussion, the strength of the conclusions, and the contribution of the manuscript to applied science and advanced engineering.

If an Editor or Editorial Board member submits a manuscript to JASAE, the manuscript will be handled independently by another qualified member of the Editorial Board. The submitting Editor or Board member will not be involved in the peer review process or decision-making for that manuscript.

Initial Submission

After submission, the Managing Editor conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript is complete and prepared according to the journal’s author guidelines. The manuscript is also checked for suitability with the journal’s aims and scope.

Before proceeding to peer review, each manuscript is screened for similarity using plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, incomplete, improperly formatted, or considered technically unsuitable may be returned to the authors or rejected without external review.

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to an Editor, who evaluates whether the submission is scientifically valid, technically sound, and suitable for external peer review.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to independent reviewers through the journal’s online submission system. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, relevance to the manuscript topic, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Authors may be invited to suggest potential reviewers during submission. These suggestions may be considered by the editorial team, but the journal is not obligated to use the suggested reviewers.

Reviewer identities are kept confidential unless a reviewer voluntarily chooses to disclose their identity. The editorial team makes every effort to secure appropriate reviewers in a timely manner. If sufficient reviewers cannot be obtained, alternative qualified reviewers may be invited to avoid unnecessary delays.

Decision after Review

After the peer review reports are received, the Editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and recommendations before making an editorial decision. The possible decisions include:

1. Accept
   The manuscript is accepted without further revision.

2. Minor Revision
   The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be considered for acceptance.

3. Major Revision
   The manuscript requires substantial revision, clarification, additional analysis, or further work before a final decision can be made.

4. Reject
   The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The decision letter will include reviewer comments and editorial guidance to assist authors in revising their manuscript, where applicable.

Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified in the decision letter. The revised manuscript should be submitted through the revision link provided by the journal and must not be submitted as a new manuscript.

Authors are required to provide a detailed point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment from the Editor and reviewers has been addressed. Changes in the revised manuscript should be clearly indicated using highlighted text or tracked changes.

Depending on the nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be evaluated by the handling Editor or returned to the original or new reviewers for further assessment. Authors are encouraged to address all comments carefully in the first revision round to support an efficient editorial process.

Final Submission and Acceptance

A manuscript is formally accepted for publication only after all editorial, scientific, technical, and formatting issues have been resolved. The submission date recorded in the published article refers to the date when the original manuscript passed the journal’s initial quality control checks. The acceptance date refers to the date on which the formal acceptance decision was issued.

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage. Authors will receive proofs for final checking. At this stage, only corrections related to typographical errors, author information, article title, formatting issues, or scientific errors may be considered. All corrections are subject to approval by the editorial or production team.

Appeals

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that a rejection decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, factual error, or evidence of bias. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript, and appeals may be submitted only after a peer review decision has been issued.

Appeals must provide a clear explanation and supporting evidence. The Editor handling the manuscript will review the appeal and may consult the Editorial Board or additional reviewers when necessary.

Editorial decisions are reversed only when there is strong evidence that the original decision was based on a serious error. Disagreements about reviewer judgment are not sufficient grounds for appeal unless they involve substantial factual errors that could have affected the final decision.