Peer Review Policy

Advances in Science, Engineering and Society (ASES), published by NK Publishers, is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly quality, fairness, transparency, and ethical integrity in academic publishing.

All submitted manuscripts—except editorials, invited commentaries, and book reviews—undergo a rigorous peer-review process in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) best practices, and relevant University Grants Commission (UGC) parameters for peer-reviewed journals.

Type of Peer Review

ASES employs a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review process, under which:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers

  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors

This model is designed to minimize potential bias related to gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, career stage, or academic reputation, and to ensure fair, impartial, and merit-based evaluation of scholarly work.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal’s aims and multidisciplinary scope

  • Meets baseline standards of originality, clarity, and scholarly relevance

  • Complies with submission guidelines and ethical requirements, including a similarity index below 10%, in accordance with UGC plagiarism regulations

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review, typically within 7–14 days of submission.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with appropriate subject-matter and methodological expertise.

Reviewer selection prioritizes:

  • Scholarly competence and relevance to the manuscript’s domain

  • Diversity of disciplinary and methodological perspectives

  • Absence of conflicts of interest (e.g., shared institutional affiliation, recent collaboration, or personal relationships)

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the contribution

  • Relevance to science, engineering, and societal dimensions

  • Theoretical soundness and/or methodological rigor

  • Clarity, coherence, and quality of presentation

  • Ethical integrity, including social responsibility and sustainability considerations where applicable

  • Potential impact on research, policy, practice, or interdisciplinary understanding

Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept

  • Minor revisions

  • Major revisions

  • Reject

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes the final editorial decision, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and ensuring consistency, fairness, and adherence to ethical standards.

In cases of substantially divergent reviewer recommendations, an additional reviewer may be consulted. Authors are normally notified of the editorial decision within 8–12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.

5. Revisions

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a detailed, point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions have been made.

6. Final Acceptance

Only manuscripts that satisfactorily address reviewer feedback and meet ASES’s scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards are accepted for publication.

Transparency and Timelines

  • This peer review policy is publicly available on the journal website

  • Average time to first decision: 8–12 weeks

  • Average time from submission to publication: 4–6 months, depending on revision cycles

  • Dates of submission, acceptance, and publication are clearly displayed on each published article

Reviewer Responsibilities and Recognition

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest

  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations

  • Avoid personal, discriminatory, or derogatory language

Reviewer recognition may include:

  • Annual public acknowledgment (with reviewer consent)

  • Integration with platforms such as Publons or ReviewerCredits, where applicable

  • Issuance of reviewer certificates upon request

Editorial Independence and Ethical Oversight

  • Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, institutional, or personal interests

  • Special issues are subject to the same rigorous double-blind peer-review standards as regular issues

  • Submissions by editors or editorial board members are minimized and handled transparently

  • ASES follows COPE procedures for managing appeals, disputes, corrections, retractions, and allegations of research or publication misconduct