Peer Review Process

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Advanced Science Computing and Engineering (IJASCE) regards rigorous, independent, and ethical peer review as an essential component of scholarly publishing. Peer review supports editors in evaluating the originality, methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, ethical acceptability, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

IJASCE manages its peer review process in accordance with the COPE Core Practices, the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal and are not determined solely by reviewer recommendations.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all manuscript types designated by IJASCE as subject to external peer review. It governs the responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors from initial editorial assessment through final editorial decision.

Editorial material such as editorials, corrections, retraction notices, and other content that does not undergo the journal's standard external peer review process will be identified accordingly. Where an article receives a review process that differs from the journal's standard procedure, the journal will disclose the applicable review process when appropriate.

3. Policy Statement and Guidelines

IJASCE operates a single-anonymous peer review model. Reviewers have access to the identities of the authors, while the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial records and are not routinely published with articles.

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers serving in this capacity should not be directly involved in the editorial handling or decision-making process for the manuscript. The handling editor may invite additional reviewers when reports conflict substantially, specialist expertise is required, an ethical or methodological concern requires further assessment, or additional evidence is necessary to support an editorial decision.

Peer review is advisory. Reviewers provide expert assessments and recommendations, while the editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors' responses, applicable journal policies, and any additional evidence relevant to the evaluation.

3.1 Review Stages

  1. Initial Editorial Screening. The editorial office or assigned editor evaluates the submission for alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope, basic scholarly and methodological suitability, compliance with submission requirements, completeness of required declarations, and potential research or publication ethics concerns. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet minimum scholarly requirements, or present substantial unresolved ethical concerns may be declined without external peer review.

  2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment. Reviewers are selected according to their relevant subject expertise, scholarly experience, ability to evaluate the methods used in the manuscript, and absence of material conflicts of interest. Editors must seek reviewers who can provide independent and impartial assessments. Reviewer selection must not be influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, political or religious beliefs, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.

  3. External Peer Review. Manuscripts proceeding to external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. Reviewers receive the manuscript and relevant supplementary material required to evaluate the study. Each reviewer is asked to assess the manuscript independently and within the review period communicated by the journal.

  4. Reviewer Assessment. Reviewers evaluate, as applicable, the originality and significance of the work, clarity of the research problem, appropriateness of the methodology, validity of the analysis, adequacy of evidence supporting the conclusions, reproducibility or transparency of the reported procedures, ethical compliance, quality of presentation, and relevance to IJASCE's Focus and Scope.

    Reviewers provide constructive comments and may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute editorial decisions.

  5. Editorial Evaluation and Decision. The handling editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewer reports and other relevant evidence. The editor may accept the reviewers' recommendations, request clarification, seek an additional review, request revision, or reach a different decision when justified by the evidence and journal policy. Editorial decisions are not determined by a numerical vote among reviewers.

  6. Author Revision. When revision is invited, authors must address the reviewers' and editor's comments systematically. Authors should provide a point-by-point response identifying the changes made or explaining, with appropriate scholarly justification, why a particular recommendation was not followed.

  7. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts. Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers depending on the extent of the revisions and the issues identified during the previous review round.

  8. Final Decision. The responsible editor makes the final decision based on the complete editorial record. Acceptance requires that the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, and reporting requirements. Favorable reviewer recommendations do not guarantee publication.

3.2 Content Subject to Peer Review

All scholarly article types identified in the current IJASCE Author Guidelines as externally peer reviewed follow the process described in this policy. This includes original research and other research-based article types accepted by the journal.

The journal will maintain consistency between this Peer Review Process, the Author Guidelines, and the submission system regarding article types eligible for publication and the review procedure applied to each type.

Editorials, correction notices, retraction notices, and comparable editorial material are not normally subject to the journal's standard external peer review procedure. Invited scholarly content may undergo external peer review when the editor determines that independent expert assessment is appropriate. Any material departure from the journal's standard peer review process will be disclosed where necessary.

3.3 Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Conduct

IJASCE reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers must:

  • accept a review assignment only when they have sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript and can complete the review within the agreed period;

  • declare any financial, professional, personal, intellectual, institutional, or other competing interest that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the impartiality of the review;

  • decline the review or seek guidance from the editor when a significant competing interest exists;

  • maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, supplementary files, data, reviewer instructions, correspondence, and other unpublished material received through the review process;

  • not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, competitive, or other advantage;

  • not share the manuscript or involve another person in the review without prior authorization from the journal;

  • provide an objective, evidence-based, constructive, courteous, and sufficiently detailed assessment;

  • avoid personal criticism, discriminatory language, defamatory statements, hostile comments, or other unprofessional communication;

  • avoid requesting citations primarily to increase citations to the reviewer's own work, the work of associates, or a particular journal;

  • identify relevant published work that may have been overlooked when this information is genuinely important to evaluating or improving the manuscript; and

  • promptly inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, citation manipulation, authorship concerns, undisclosed competing interests, ethical problems, peer review manipulation, or other potential research or publication integrity concerns encountered during review.

Reviewers must not independently investigate authors or contact authors directly about concerns identified during peer review. Ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the responsible editor for appropriate assessment under IJASCE's publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance.

3.4 Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, unpublished data, images, source code, reviewer correspondence, or other confidential submission material to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence services or other external systems that cannot provide appropriate confidentiality, data protection, and retention safeguards.

A reviewer may use an AI-assisted tool in connection with peer review only when its use has been explicitly permitted by IJASCE and the tool operates under confidentiality and data-protection conditions approved by the journal. Any permitted substantive use must be disclosed to the editor.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's own scholarly assessment, reasoning, or responsibility for the review report. Reviewers remain fully accountable for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and appropriateness of all comments submitted under their name.

IJASCE will not delegate decisions to accept or reject manuscripts to generative AI or other automated systems. AI-assisted systems may support administrative, screening, or analytical tasks, but editorial decisions require responsible human oversight.

3.5 Confidentiality, Reviewer Reports, and Editorial Handling

Reviewer identities are confidential under the journal's single-anonymous peer review model. Reviewers must not reveal their identity to authors during the review process unless disclosure has been specifically authorized by the journal.

Reviewer reports are confidential and are provided to support editorial decision-making and manuscript improvement. The journal does not routinely publish reviewer reports, author responses, or reviewer identities.

Editors may screen reviewer reports for potentially defamatory, discriminatory, offensive, confidential, or otherwise inappropriate material before forwarding them to authors. IJASCE will not alter a reviewer's scholarly judgment or recommendation merely because an editor disagrees with it. Where substantive editing of a review is necessary, the journal should, where practicable, allow the reviewer to revise the report or inform the reviewer of significant editorial changes.

3.6 Reviewer Recognition

IJASCE values peer review as an important scholarly contribution. The journal may acknowledge reviewers through annual reviewer lists, certificates, or letters of recognition, provided that recognition does not compromise the confidentiality of individual manuscript reviews and the reviewer has consented to the disclosure.

Where technically supported, reviewers may also receive verified recognition of their reviewing activity through services such as Web of Science Researcher Profiles or other appropriate scholarly recognition platforms, subject to the reviewer's consent and the journal's confidentiality requirements.

3.7 Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors are responsible for managing manuscripts impartially and must declare and appropriately manage their own competing interests. An editor must not handle a manuscript when a relationship or interest could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, independent editorial judgment. In such cases, responsibility for the manuscript must be reassigned to another qualified editor without the relevant conflict.

Submissions authored or co-authored by an IJASCE editor or editorial board member must be handled independently of that individual. The author-editor must not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential review information beyond that available to other authors, or participate in the editorial decision.

3.8 Editorial Decisions and Appeals

The responsible editor has final responsibility for acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision. Editors may reject a manuscript despite favorable reviewer recommendations when substantial concerns remain regarding validity, research integrity, ethical compliance, reporting quality, originality, or suitability for IJASCE.

Authors who believe that a decision resulted from a material error in the review or editorial process may submit an appeal in accordance with IJASCE's Complaints and Appeals Policy. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of the original decision.

4. Responsibilities

Authors must submit original and ethically conducted work, provide complete and accurate declarations, protect the integrity of the peer review process, and respond to editorial and reviewer comments accurately and professionally.

Reviewers must provide independent, confidential, timely, evidence-based, and ethical assessments within their areas of competence and report potential research or publication integrity concerns to the editor.

Editors must manage peer review impartially, select appropriately qualified and independent reviewers, protect confidentiality, manage competing interests, evaluate reviewer reports critically, respond appropriately to integrity concerns, and retain responsibility for editorial decisions.

5. Handling Concerns and Breaches of Peer Review Integrity

IJASCE takes concerns about peer review integrity seriously. Potential breaches include, but are not limited to, breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed competing interests, reviewer impersonation, inappropriate delegation of a review, manipulation of reviewer identities or recommendations, coercive citation requests, appropriation of authors' ideas or material, fabricated reviews, discriminatory or abusive conduct, and other attempts to compromise the independence or integrity of peer review.

When a concern is raised, IJASCE will conduct an editorial assessment of the available evidence and will follow applicable COPE guidance and the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy. The journal may request clarification from the individuals involved, discontinue or replace a review, remove a reviewer from consideration for future assignments, reassess an editorial decision, or refer sufficiently substantiated concerns to an appropriate institution or other competent body when formal investigation is warranted.

IJASCE distinguishes editorial assessment from formal research misconduct investigation. Where institutional investigation is required, the relevant institution or competent authority is responsible for determining misconduct. IJASCE remains responsible for decisions concerning manuscripts under review and for any correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other amendment required to protect the published scholarly record.

If manipulation or another serious failure of peer review materially undermines the reliability or legitimacy of a published article, IJASCE may take post-publication action in accordance with COPE guidance and the journal's Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections Policy.

6. Related Policies and References

  • COPE Core Practices — Peer Review Processes

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  • COPE Guidelines on Editing Peer Reviews

  • COPE Discussion Document: Who “Owns” Peer Reviews?

  • COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases

  • COPE Discussion Document: Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making for the Scholarly Publication Process

  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME

  • IJASCE Allegations of Misconduct Policy

  • IJASCE Conflicts of Interest Policy

  • IJASCE Complaints and Appeals Policy

  • IJASCE Artificial Intelligence Tools Usage Policy

  • IJASCE Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections Policy

7. Review and Updates

This policy was reviewed in September 2026. IJASCE will review this policy periodically and revise it when necessary to reflect changes in the journal's editorial procedures, COPE guidance, and recognized best practices in scholarly peer review.