Review Process

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Science and Information Technology (IJAESIT) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process for all submitted manuscripts. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

 

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial in-house evaluation conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial members. This preliminary assessment examines:

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with submission guidelines (formatting, word count, language clarity)
• Originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution
• Overall research quality and significance to the journal’s readership

Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected at this stage. Desk rejections typically occur when submissions fall outside the journal’s scope, demonstrate insufficient originality, contain major methodological or language deficiencies, or do not meet academic standards. Authors are notified promptly, allowing them to seek alternative publication venues without unnecessary delay.

 

Peer Review Stage

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are forwarded to two independent subject-matter experts for peer review. Reviewers are first invited based on the manuscript abstract and, upon acceptance, receive the full manuscript for evaluation. Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within two to three weeks.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their evaluation. Each reviewer assesses the manuscript using a structured evaluation framework, considering factors such as:

• Novelty and originality
• Contribution to the existing body of knowledge
• Methodology and research design
• Ethical considerations and research integrity
• Clarity of results, discussion, and conclusions
• Organization, language quality, and adherence to author guidelines
• Adequacy and relevance of references

Reviewers provide anonymous general and specific comments to support authors in improving their work. In cases where reviewer opinions diverge significantly, an additional round of review or consultation with additional reviewers may be initiated.

Each review concludes with one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions
• Reject

 

Revision Stage

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors receive detailed reviewer feedback and are asked to submit a revised version within the specified timeframe. Manuscripts requiring minor revisions should be resubmitted within one week, while those requiring major revisions are allotted two weeks. Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments thoroughly and transparently.

 

Final Editorial Decision

The revised manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief to verify that reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed. At this stage, the manuscript may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected if revisions are deemed insufficient. The editorial decision at this stage reflects the journal’s commitment to quality, rigor, and scholarly integrity.

 

Copyediting, Production, and Proofreading

Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout formatting, and proofreading to ensure clarity, consistency, and professional presentation. Authors are provided with a final proof (PDF format) for review and approval prior to online publication.

 

Complaints Policy

IJAESIT is committed to handling all complaints fairly, transparently, and promptly. Complaints related to editorial procedures, peer review, or publication ethics are reviewed carefully to ensure impartial resolution for all parties involved.

 

Appeals against Editorial Decisions

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a formal request to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal will be reviewed by examining the manuscript, reviewer reports, and editorial rationale. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent to additional reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision following an appeal is final. All appeals and complaints are acknowledged within two working days.