Peer Review Policy

Reviewer’s responsibility

Important factors to be noted by a reviewer:

  1. Manuscripts submitted to AJST are subjected to double blind peer-review process. In this process the reviewer’s names and author names are hidden (the reviewer will not know who the author is and vice-versa). Up to two independent reviewers will be assigned per manuscript.
  2. The article must match the area of expertise of the reviewer. As a reviewer if you find that the article is not aligning with your subject expertise, please inform the editorial office without delay.
  3. Timely review and timely publication give professional advantages. It is therefore important to meet the deadlines and send the report within the time period. The process of reviewing the article along with recommendations must be done within 14 days. Exceeding that will lead to delay in editor’s decision as well as delay in publishing.
  4. While accepting a reviewing assignment the respective reviewer agrees not to share any information provided in the manuscript with anyone. Confidentiality is mandatory for any reviewer.
  5. Reviewer comments must be reasonable. You must hold your points with firm logical reasons.
  6. It has been observed, conflict arises among the reviewers’ opinion in deciding the fate of an article. Therefore, the Editor-in-Chief and Editor’s decision will be final and unanimously accepted.
  7. The AJST-Peer Review Form and manuscripts will be submitted together to the reviewers for writing their evaluation report.
  8. Assigned reviewers are responsible for scrutinizing a manuscript technically and the organization of the manuscript properly depending on the article type. Reviewer’s comments should be brief to the point and clearly understandable by the Editors and Authors.
  9. Specifying and matching the article with the standards of the journal is a must.
  10. The evaluation report has to be shared with the editor.
  11. After evaluation of manuscript, the reviewers will decide :
     i. Accept
     ii. Accept with minor revision
     iii. Accept with major revisions
     iv. Reject (Decline with Justification).
  12. If the decision is classified as ‘Accept with Minor Revision’ or ‘Major Revision,’ the author shall have 7 or 14 days, respectively, to resubmit the revised manuscript from the date of official communication of the verdict.
  13. Upon resubmission, and having been satisfied that such revision as may have been initially proposed has been made, the Editorial Board may choose to send them back to the reviewers, or may render a decision based on its expertise.
  14. The Editorial Board has the discretion of rejecting a manuscript whose author fails to revise upon such recommendation.
  15. In special circumstances, the contributors may be asked to suggest referees working in the same area for evaluation. However, the final choice of reviewers is a preserve of the Editorial Board.