peer review process

Academic Journal of Science and Technology (AJST) is a double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal.
The articles that are published in the AJST follow a double blind peer-review procedure.
Each paper registered for publication is separately assessed and reviewed by two independent reviewers who will not be aware of the author’s identity. In turn, the authors do not know the reviewers’ identity.
The scientific review is accomplished by outstanding specialists in the field of the article under review. The appointed scientific reviewers may belong to the scientific committee of the Journal or not (see the Referees' Board as well).
All submitted papers enter a first editorial evaluation followed by a peer-review.
The peer-review process respects the originality of the research papers, but it includes changes based on the reviewers' observations in order to preserve the high scientific quality of the publication.
The reviewing process implies the following stages:
1. Submitting the manuscript by author(s) in English language
2. Receiving the manuscript by the Editorial Board.
3. Preliminary manuscript checking of thematic relevance, compliance with contents and editing guidelines, appropriate and accurate English, as instructed by “Guidelines for Authors”. In the case the manuscript does not fulfill the requirements mentioned above, it will be returned by the Editorial Board to author(s) with the necessary observations concerning the insertion of additional information, rephrasing, etc
4. Registering the manuscript by the Editorial Board. If during the preliminary manuscript checking process the manuscript fulfills the requirements, the Open journal system registers the manuscript providing a unique identification code. This code and the confirmation of manuscript receiving will be sent to the author’s e-mail address.
5. Transmitting the manuscript to two independent reviewers. The manuscript is separately assessed and reviewed by two independent reviewers who will not be aware of the author’s identity. After assessment and review, each reviewer writes the Reviewer’s Report where she mentions one of the following:
- Definitely Accepted, in the case that the manuscript is published;
- Accepted with minor changes, in the case the manuscript cannot be published, for the moment. The Editorial Board sends the manuscript and Reviewers’ Report with the reviewers’ improvement suggestions on the authors’ email address. After the author makes the necessary corrections, he/she sends the manuscript to the Editorial Board in 10 days’ time since he/she received the Editorial Board’s answer. The Editorial Board sends the improved manuscript to the reviewer(s). This process is reiterated until the reviewer (reviewers) considers the manuscript could be accepted with no objections.
- Accepted with (major) changes and revision, in the case the manuscript cannot be published, for the moment. The Editorial Board sends the manuscript and Reviewers’ Report with the reviewers’ revision suggestions on the authors’ email address. After the author makes the necessary corrections, he/she sends the manuscript to the Editorial Board in 10 days’ time since he/she received the Editorial Board’s answer. The Editorial Board sends the improved manuscript to the reviewer(s). This process is reiterated until the reviewer (reviewers) considers the manuscript could be accepted with no objections.
- Rejected, when the manuscript cannot be published. Besides the reasons concerning the scientific content of the manuscript, the reviewer (reviewers) may reject the manuscript whenever he/she ascertains a case of plagiarism or compiling.
The two or three reviewers appointed by the Editorial Board for that respective topic must send their decision to the Editor within 14 days after they have received the manuscript to be reviewed.
If, at least one of the reviewers considers that the article does not fulfill the scientific terms of publication, the Editorial Board can refuse its publication.
The assessment criteria are mainly the following: relevance to AJST profile; contribution to the academic debate; focus and rationale of the paper; theoretical framework and related literature; appropriateness of the research/study method; discussion and conclusion; relevance and clarity of drawings, graphs and tables; appropriateness of abstract as a description of the paper; use and number of keywords/key phrases; ethics; standard of English; clarity of writing, explanations, and concepts, suitability of illustrations and tables (too many, too few, clarity); reference list, adequate and correctly cited.
6. After the final revision of the paper, if the peer-review is positive, the paper enters an English proofreading process and the editing for publication.
The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences.
We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the Editor.