IJSASE follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and integrity of all published articles.
The International Journal of Sustainable Applied Science and Engineering (IJSASE) uses a double-blind peer-review process for manuscripts submitted for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
All manuscripts are subject to an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review. The journal aims to ensure that every published article meets appropriate academic, ethical, and scientific standards within the scope of sustainable applied science and engineering.
Authors can expect an initial editorial screening decision within a maximum of two weeks after submission.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.
The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. Reviewer recommendations are carefully considered but do not constitute the final editorial decision.
Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the editorial team.
The initial editorial assessment considers:
- conformity with the journal's aims and scope;
- originality and scientific relevance;
- significance and potential contribution to sustainable applied science and engineering;
- compliance with the journal's submission requirements;
- basic methodological and academic quality;
- clarity and organization of the manuscript;
- research and publication ethics;
- plagiarism and text-similarity concerns; and
- potential conflicts of interest.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements, demonstrate insufficient academic quality, or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected without external peer review.
Passing the initial editorial screening does not imply acceptance of the manuscript or guarantee publication.
Peer-Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent for external peer review.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
IJSASE uses a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their identities are appropriately concealed in the manuscript and in supplementary materials submitted for review.
The peer-review process normally includes:
- Initial editorial screening;
- Assessment of research and publication ethics;
- Plagiarism and text-similarity checking;
- Assignment of appropriate external reviewers;
- Double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers;
- Evaluation of reviewer reports by the editor;
- Author revision when required;
- Additional review when necessary; and
- Final editorial decision.
The number of review rounds may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript, the reviewers' recommendations, and the extent of revisions required.
Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining and improving the scientific quality of IJSASE. They are expected to provide independent, objective, fair, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts.
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific and academic merits and should avoid personal criticism of authors.
Reviewers are expected to consider, where applicable:
- scientific originality and novelty;
- relevance to sustainable applied science and engineering;
- importance and potential contribution of the research;
- methodological soundness;
- accuracy and appropriateness of analysis;
- clarity and logical organization;
- quality and adequacy of references;
- validity of conclusions;
- ethical considerations; and
- compliance with the journal's author guidelines.
Reviewer recommendations and comments are considered by the editor when making an editorial decision. Reviewers do not make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process.
If a reviewer believes that a manuscript is outside their area of expertise, cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, or involves a conflict of interest, the reviewer should decline the review invitation.
Reviewers must not transfer, delegate, share, or otherwise disclose the manuscript or any part of the review assignment to another person without prior permission from the editor.
If outside expert advice is considered necessary, it may only be obtained with the editor's prior approval and must remain confidential.
If a reviewer becomes aware of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, simultaneous submission, or other forms of research misconduct, the reviewer should confidentially notify the editor.
Peer-Review Decision
Following completion of the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes the final editorial decision.
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept;
- Minor Revision;
- Major Revision; or
- Reject.
The editor may request additional revisions or further external review when necessary.
The final decision is based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, contribution to the field, ethical compliance, and the overall assessment of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are an important component of the decision-making process but are not automatically determinative.
Privacy and Confidentiality
Authors submitting manuscripts to IJSASE entrust the journal with unpublished research results and intellectual work. The journal therefore treats submitted manuscripts and information relating to the peer-review process as confidential.
Editors must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts, including manuscript content, review status, reviewer identities, reviewer comments, or editorial decisions, to anyone other than authorized persons involved in the editorial process.
Reviewers and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not discuss unpublished work publicly.
Reviewers must not make copies of manuscripts, distribute manuscripts to unauthorized persons, or use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, financial, or other advantage.
Confidentiality may be breached when disclosure is necessary to investigate suspected fraud, research misconduct, or other serious ethical concerns, or when disclosure is required by applicable law or recognized publication-ethics procedures.
Conflict of Interest in the Reviewing Process
Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their impartiality.
Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript when a conflict of interest could compromise the objectivity or fairness of their assessment.
Potential conflicts of interest may include:
- close personal or professional relationships with the authors;
- recent collaboration with one or more authors;
- direct academic or professional competition;
- institutional relationships or conflicts;
- financial interests related to the research;
- previous involvement in the submitted work; or
- other circumstances that could create a significant positive or negative bias.
Reviewers should focus their assessment exclusively on the scientific and academic quality of the manuscript and should avoid personal criticism, discriminatory comments, or inappropriate judgments.
Any ethical concern or potential conflict of interest should be reported confidentially to the Editorial Office using the journal's official contact information.
Special Issues
Articles submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as regular submissions.
Special issue manuscripts must undergo external peer review by at least two independent reviewers, unless an exceptional and justified editorial circumstance requires otherwise.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the editorial quality, integrity, and content of special issues.
Where guest editors are appointed, their qualifications and relevant expertise are reviewed and approved by the journal. Guest editors work under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief or designated members of the Editorial Board.
Guest editors do not have sole authority over the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and must comply with the journal's peer-review and publication-ethics policies.
Manuscripts submitted by guest editors, members of the editorial team, or individuals with a close relationship to the editorial team must be handled through an appropriate independent review process to ensure editorial impartiality.
Peer Review and Research Integrity
Peer review at IJSASE is conducted in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies.
Reviewers are expected to notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, peer-review manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct.
The journal may request additional information, original research data, ethical approval documentation, or other supporting materials when necessary to assess the integrity, reliability, or reproducibility of a manuscript.
Where serious ethical concerns arise, the journal may take appropriate action in accordance with recognized publication-ethics principles and procedures.
Use of Generative AI in Peer Review
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished material, reviewer reports, or other confidential information to generative artificial intelligence systems or external automated tools unless such use is explicitly permitted by the journal and appropriate confidentiality protections are in place.
Reviewers must not use generative AI systems to generate substantive peer-review assessments, recommendations, or editorial judgments on their behalf.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, fairness, and integrity of their peer-review reports.
Editors should also ensure that any use of automated or AI-assisted tools in the editorial process does not compromise confidentiality, editorial independence, or research integrity.
Review Timeline
IJSASE aims to complete the initial editorial screening within a maximum of two weeks after submission.
For manuscripts that proceed to external peer review, the journal aims to complete the initial external review process within approximately four weeks.
These timeframes are targets rather than guarantees. The review process may take longer because of reviewer availability, difficulty in identifying suitable reviewers, requests for additional reviews, major revisions, editorial workload, or other circumstances beyond the journal's control.
The journal may contact additional reviewers when necessary to obtain sufficiently informed and independent assessments.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editors based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and overall contribution of the manuscript.
Reviewers provide recommendations and evaluations, but the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.
Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, financial considerations, political pressure, personal relationships, or other non-scientific factors.
The publisher and journal management respect the editorial independence of the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit complaints or appeals concerning the peer-review process, editorial decisions, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, or other editorial matters.
Complaints and appeals will be handled fairly, confidentially, and as promptly as reasonably possible by the Editorial Office.
Where appropriate, an appeal may be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or another independent member of the editorial team for consideration.
An appeal should provide clear reasons and, where relevant, specific evidence explaining why the editorial decision should be reconsidered.
Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be changed.
Editors may decline to reconsider decisions when an appeal does not provide substantive grounds for reconsideration or when the manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific or ethical requirements.
Publication Ethics
The peer-review process of IJSASE is conducted in accordance with recognized principles of ethical scholarly publishing.
The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, confidentiality, transparency, and editorial independence.
For further information concerning publication ethics, research misconduct, authorship, conflicts of interest, corrections, retractions, peer-review integrity, and related matters, please consult the journal's Publication Ethics policy.
Additional Guidance
IJSASE encourages reviewers and editors to consult the guidelines and resources of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) where appropriate.
For guidance specifically related to peer-review ethics and peer-review manipulation, reviewers and editors may also consult the following COPE resources:
- COPE Flowchart – Peer Review Manipulation Suspected During the Peer Review Process
- COPE Infographic – How to Recognise Potential Manipulation of the Peer Review Process
- COPE Guidance – Systematic Manipulation of the Publication Process
These resources provide guidance for editors and reviewers on identifying, investigating, and responding to potential manipulation of peer review and the publication process.
