Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Applied Science and Technology in Engineering (JASTE) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure their originality, technical quality, methodological rigor, validity, and contribution to engineering and technological development. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial process begins with an initial screening by the Editorial Office. Each manuscript is evaluated for:

  1. Relevance to the focus and scope of JASTE;

  2. Compliance with the Author Guidelines;

  3. Originality and clarity of the engineering or technological contribution;

  4. Completeness of the manuscript;

  5. Quality of academic English;

  6. Compliance with publication ethics; and

  7. Similarity or potential plagiarism.

A manuscript must address a clearly defined engineering or technological problem and demonstrate appropriate technical, experimental, analytical, or computational methods. It must also provide measurable validation and a relevant contribution to the development or improvement of systems, devices, processes, products, infrastructure, or technological solutions.

Submissions that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack a substantive engineering contribution, contain serious methodological weaknesses, fail to provide measurable technical validation, or do not comply with the journal’s requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external review.

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s engineering field, technology, method, or application.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all related materials as confidential.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  1. Relevance to the focus and scope of JASTE;

  2. Originality and significance of the engineering or technological problem;

  3. Clarity of the research objectives and technical contribution;

  4. Appropriateness of the experimental, analytical, computational, or engineering methods;

  5. Adequacy of the system design, research procedures, datasets, instruments, algorithms, hardware, or software;

  6. Reliability and reproducibility of the methods;

  7. Adequacy of technical validation, testing, simulation, benchmarking, or performance evaluation;

  8. Accuracy and clarity of the results;

  9. Consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions;

  10. Relevance of the literature and references;

  11. Quality of tables, figures, equations, diagrams, and technical illustrations;

  12. Ethical compliance and research integrity; and

  13. Contribution to engineering theory, professional practice, system development, or technological innovation.

Research applied to health, education, agriculture, industry, environmental management, business, or public services is evaluated according to whether its primary problem, methodology, validation, and contribution are clearly grounded in engineering or technology.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ evaluations and recommendations, the Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept without revision;

  2. Accept with minor revisions;

  3. Request major revisions and resubmission; or

  4. Reject the manuscript.

A reviewer’s recommendation supports the editorial decision but does not determine it independently. The Editor considers the quality of the reviews, the manuscript’s scientific and technical merit, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s scope, and the adequacy of the authors’ responses.

Revision Process

Authors who receive a revision request must submit:

  1. A revised manuscript with all changes clearly identified;

  2. A detailed point-by-point response to every reviewer and editor comment; and

  3. A clear explanation when a recommendation has not been followed.

The revised manuscript must be submitted within the deadline specified by the Editorial Office. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers when further technical evaluation is required.

Authors must not remove, alter, or disregard reviewer comments without providing a reasoned academic or technical response.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering the reviewers’ reports, the handling editor’s recommendation, the authors’ revisions and responses, the manuscript’s technical quality, and the journal’s editorial policies.

The Editor-in-Chief may request additional review, technical verification, ethical clarification, data explanation, or further revision before reaching a final decision. The final editorial decision is based on academic and technical merit and is not influenced by commercial, institutional, political, or personal interests.

Confidentiality and Impartiality

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, research data, system designs, technical specifications, algorithms, source code, and other unpublished materials.

All manuscripts are evaluated objectively and fairly without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, professional status, political views, or personal background.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest. Individuals with a conflict of interest must withdraw from the evaluation or decision-making process.

Research Integrity

If plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical violations are identified during the review process, the manuscript may be rejected and further action may be taken in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics.

The peer-review process is intended to ensure that articles published by JASTE meet appropriate standards of originality, methodological rigor, measurable technical validation, research integrity, and contribution to applied engineering and technology.