Evaluation Protocol

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

Commitment to objective, independent, and rigorous peer review for all scientific submissions.

1. Double-Blind Review Model

AJETAS operates a strict Double-Blind Peer Review model. Under this standard:

Reviewers do not know the identities, institutional affiliations, or geographic origins of the authors.
Authors do not know the identities of the peer reviewers evaluating their manuscripts.
The editorial management platform automatically strips author metadata, affiliation headers, and digital document properties from manuscripts delivered to reviewers.

2. Review Workflow & Target Timeline

The editorial workflow comprises four distinct phases:

Stage 1: Editorial ScreeningInitial Scope & Integrity Check

Handling editor verifies journal scope fit, formatting completeness, and plagiarism screening within 3–5 working days.

Stage 2: Peer ReviewExpert Evaluation (2–3 Reviewers)

Invited domain specialists submit structured rubric scores, constructive feedback, and confidential editorial notes.

Stage 3: Editor RecommendationHandling Editor Synthesis

Editor synthesizes reviewer evaluations and submits a recommendation (Accept, Minor/Major Revision, Reject) to the Editor-in-Chief.

Stage 4: EiC RatificationFinal Official Decision

Editor-in-Chief independently verifies the review file and issues the binding decision notice to corresponding authors.

3. Reviewer Selection & Conflict of Interest Policy

To guarantee impartiality, reviewers are selected exclusively based on doctoral credentials, active research publications in the subject domain, and verified independence.

Mandatory Disqualifications: An individual cannot review a manuscript if they:

Are a co-author on the submitted manuscript.
Share an active institutional or departmental affiliation with any author.
Have co-authored academic research with the primary author within the past 36 months.
Have a direct financial, personal, or competitive interest in the research outcomes.

4. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a rejection resulted from a demonstrable factual error or undocumented reviewer bias may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office (editor@ajetas.com) within 14 days of receiving the decision notice. Appeals must detail specific technical rebuttals rather than general dissatisfaction.