Reviewer Guidelines

Advances in Science, Engineering and Society (ASES)

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a peer reviewer for Advances in Science, Engineering and Society (ASES). Your expertise, scholarly judgment, and professional integrity are essential to maintaining the academic quality, ethical standards, and interdisciplinary impact of the journal.

ASES follows a double-blind peer review process, ensuring fairness, objectivity, and academic rigor across all submissions in science, engineering, social sciences, education, policy, and interdisciplinary research.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process at ASES aims to ensure that published articles:

  • Contribute original and significant knowledge to their respective fields

  • Demonstrate theoretical depth and methodological rigor

  • Adhere to high ethical research standards

  • Present clear, logically structured, and accessible scholarship

  • Offer meaningful implications for research, practice, innovation, or policy

Reviewers play a critical role in supporting editorial decision-making and assisting authors in strengthening the scholarly quality of their work.

2. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential:

  • Do not share, discuss, or disclose manuscript content outside the editorial process.

  • Do not use unpublished data, ideas, or findings for personal research or publication.

  • Do not retain copies of the manuscript after completing the review.

  • Maintain anonymity in accordance with the double-blind review system.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including but not limited to:

  • Recent or ongoing collaboration with any author

  • Institutional affiliation overlap

  • Personal or professional relationships

  • Direct academic competition

  • Financial or other interests related to the research topic

If a conflict exists—or if there is uncertainty—inform the handling editor immediately and decline the review where appropriate.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts across the following dimensions:

A. Relevance and Scope

  • Alignment with the aims and interdisciplinary scope of ASES

  • Contribution to science, engineering, social sciences, education, or cross-disciplinary integration

B. Originality and Significance

  • Novelty of research questions, theoretical contribution, or practical innovation

  • Advancement of knowledge in the relevant field

  • Potential interdisciplinary or societal relevance

C. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

  • Clear articulation of conceptual foundations

  • Engagement with current and relevant literature

  • Coherent and well-structured argumentation

D. Methodology and Research Design

  • Appropriateness and rigor of research methods

  • Transparency in sampling, data collection, and analysis (for empirical studies)

  • Logical coherence and scholarly support (for theoretical or conceptual papers)

  • Reproducibility and clarity where applicable

E. Ethical Compliance

  • Evidence of ethical approval where required

  • Responsible treatment of human or animal subjects

  • Transparency in funding, data use, and research limitations

F. Clarity and Presentation

  • Logical organization and clarity of writing

  • Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials

  • Accuracy of references and citation practices

G. Impact and Contribution

  • Potential to influence research, professional practice, policy, technological innovation, or societal development

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are asked to select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept – Suitable for publication with minor editorial adjustments

  • Minor Revisions – Requires small improvements; likely acceptable after revision

  • Major Revisions – Requires substantial revision; subject to re-review

  • Reject – Not suitable for publication; clear and reasoned justification required

Constructive reasoning should accompany all recommendations.

6. Tone and Constructive Feedback

ASES values professional and constructive peer review. Reviewers should:

  • Provide respectful, objective, and balanced comments

  • Focus on the manuscript rather than the authors

  • Offer specific, actionable suggestions

  • Identify both strengths and areas for improvement

  • Avoid discriminatory, derogatory, or personal remarks

The goal of peer review is developmental as well as evaluative.

7. Timeline

  • Reviews are generally expected within 3–4 weeks of acceptance of the invitation.

  • If additional time is required, notify the editorial office promptly.

  • Timely reviews help ASES maintain efficient editorial turnaround and high publication standards.

8. Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

ASES recognizes the valuable contributions of its reviewers through:

  • Annual acknowledgment on the journal website (unless anonymity is requested)

  • Certificates of reviewing upon request

  • Participation in reviewer recognition platforms where available

9. Ethical Standards

Reviewers are expected to adhere to internationally recognized publication ethics standards, including the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Any suspected misconduct, plagiarism, ethical irregularity, or data fabrication should be confidentially reported to the handling editor.

Commitment to Scholarly Excellence

By serving as a reviewer for Advances in Science, Engineering and Society (ASES), you contribute directly to maintaining academic integrity, interdisciplinary advancement, and global research standards.

For any questions during the review process, please contact the editorial office through the journal’s submission platform.