Quik help for Reviewes

1. General Guidelines

As a reviewer, your contribution is essential to maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the Journal of Applied Engineering Sciences and Technology (JAEST). Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and timely evaluations of assigned manuscripts.

Timely Evaluation

Please complete the review within the period specified by the journal. If you are unable to meet the deadline, inform the editor as early as possible so that an extension or alternative arrangement can be considered.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. The manuscript, its data, figures, results, and related information must not be shared, discussed, reproduced, or used for personal advantage before publication.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect, or appear to affect, the impartiality of their evaluation. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review and inform the editor.

Originality and Scientific Integrity

Evaluate whether the manuscript presents original, scientifically sound, and relevant work. Reviewers should report any serious concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, inappropriate citation practices, or other forms of research misconduct to the editor.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be based on scientific and technical considerations rather than personal opinions. Comments should be clear, respectful, specific, and supported by appropriate reasoning. Where weaknesses are identified, reviewers are encouraged to suggest practical ways in which the manuscript could be improved.

Reviewer Anonymity

Reviewers should not reveal their identity in comments intended for the authors unless this is specifically permitted by the journal's review policy.

2. How to Submit Your Review

To submit your review through the JAEST online submission system, please follow the steps below.

Log In

Log in to the journal's OJS platform using your reviewer credentials.

Access the Assigned Manuscript

Open your reviewer dashboard and select the manuscript assigned to you. Carefully read the manuscript and any supplementary files provided by the authors.

Complete the Review Form

Complete all relevant sections of the online review form. Your comments should be clear, well organized, and sufficiently detailed to assist both the editor and the authors.

Where separate fields are available, comments intended for the editor should be entered separately from comments intended for the authors.

Upload an Annotated File, if Necessary

If you wish to provide detailed corrections directly on the manuscript, you may upload an annotated file when this option is available. Before uploading, ensure that the file does not reveal your identity or personal information.

Recommendation

After completing your evaluation, select the recommendation that best reflects your assessment of the manuscript:

• Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial changes.
• Minor Revision – limited corrections or clarifications are required.
• Major Revision – substantial scientific or technical revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Reject – the manuscript has major deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision or falls outside the journal's standards or scope.

The recommendation should be consistent with the detailed comments provided in your review.

3. Evaluating Manuscript Components

Title and Abstract

• Is the title clear, concise, and representative of the study?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the objectives, methods, principal results, and conclusions?
• Are the keywords appropriate and relevant?

Introduction

• Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context?
• Is the research problem or knowledge gap clearly identified?
• Are the objectives, research questions, or hypotheses clearly stated?
• Is the cited literature relevant and sufficiently up to date?

Materials and Methods

• Is the methodology appropriate for the research objectives?
• Are the experimental, numerical, theoretical, or analytical procedures described clearly?
• Is sufficient information provided to allow the work to be understood and, where appropriate, reproduced?
• Are the techniques, instruments, models, and statistical methods suitable?

Results

• Are the results presented clearly, logically, and accurately?
• Are the findings supported by the data presented?
• Are tables, figures, graphs, and equations clear and necessary?
• Is unnecessary duplication between text, tables, and figures avoided?

Discussion

• Are the results interpreted appropriately?
• Are the findings compared adequately with relevant previous studies?
• Are the scientific significance and practical implications discussed?
• Are limitations or uncertainties acknowledged where appropriate?

Conclusion

• Are the conclusions supported by the results?
• Do they address the objectives of the study?
• Are unsupported or overly broad claims avoided?

Figures and Tables

• Are all figures and tables cited in the text?
• Are captions clear and informative?
• Are figures of sufficient quality and resolution?
• Are tables readable and appropriately formatted?

References

• Are the references relevant to the subject of the manuscript?
• Does the reference list include appropriate recent literature?
• Are important studies missing?
• Are citations used appropriately and without unnecessary or excessive self-citation?

Overall Scientific Contribution

• Does the manuscript provide a meaningful contribution to the field?
• Is the work sufficiently original and technically sound?
• Is the manuscript suitable for the scope and readership of JAEST?