Peer Review Process

1. Introduction

IJASCE upholds rigorous and ethical peer review as a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. The journal employs a structured and transparent review system to ensure the validity, originality, and relevance of published research. This policy outlines the peer review process and reviewer responsibilities in accordance with COPE Core Practices and WAME guidance.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all original research submissions and other peer-reviewed article types submitted to IJASCE. It also governs the roles of editors, reviewers, and authors during the review process.

3. Policy Statement and Guidelines

IJASCE uses a blind peer review model, where reviewers remain anonymous but authors are identified. Each manuscript undergoes initial editorial screening followed by external peer review by at least two to three subject-matter experts and can be more in certain cases.

3.1 Review Stages

  1. Editorial Screening: Manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial office to assess scope alignment, methodological soundness, and formatting compliance.

  2. Reviewer Assignment: Suitable reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

  3. Review Process: At least two independent reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript.

  4. Reviewer Reports: Reviewers assess clarity, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance. Constructive feedback and a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) are provided.

  5. Editorial Decision: The editor consolidates reviews, possibly seeks further opinion, and makes a final decision.

  6. Author Revision: Authors respond to reviewers’ comments and revise the manuscript accordingly.

  7. Final Evaluation: Revised submissions may be re-reviewed before final acceptance.

3.2 Types of Articles Reviewed

The following article types are peer-reviewed:

  • Original research articles

  • Review articles

  • Case studies

  • Simulation or benchmarking reports

Editorials and invited commentaries may be reviewed internally or by board members at the editor’s discretion.

3.3 Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid sharing or using unpublished material

  • Declare conflicts of interest and decline if a bias exists

  • Submit timely, constructive, and respectful reviews

  • Focus on the validity, coherence, and contribution of the work

  • Avoid suggesting citations to their own work unless genuinely necessary

The use of AI tools to assist in peer reviewing is discouraged unless explicitly authorized by the editor, and such use must be disclosed.

3.4 Reviewer Recognition

IJASCE may acknowledge reviewers annually (with their consent) and provide certificates or letters of service. Reviewers may also opt-in to be credited on platforms such as Publons.

3.5 Editorial Discretion

Editors have the final say in publication decisions and may reject a manuscript at any stage if concerns arise about its integrity, ethics, or scholarly value, even after favorable reviews.

4. Responsibilities

Authors must submit original, ethically sound research and respond to reviewer feedback constructively.
Reviewers are responsible for providing impartial, evidence-based critiques.
Editors manage the peer review process, ensure transparency, and uphold editorial standards.

5. Process for Handling Breaches

Allegations of reviewer misconduct (e.g., breach of confidentiality, bias) or peer review manipulation will be investigated. Sanctions may include removal from reviewer databases, notification to institutions, or retraction of affected articles.

IJASCE follows COPE’s flowcharts for handling peer review disputes, reviewer misconduct, and appeals.

6. Related Policies and References

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  • WAME Recommendations on Peer Review

  • IJASCE’s Allegations of Misconduct Policy

  • IJASCE’s Conflict of Interest Policy

7. Review and Updates

This policy was last reviewed in August 2025 and is reviewed annually or in response to changes in peer review best practices.