Instructions for Reviewers

Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

Peer review is a core part of publishing at ASTESJ. It ensures that each paper we publish meets high standards of quality and accuracy. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts before any final decision.

After you submit, the Managing Editor will do a technical pre-check to confirm the file is complete and follows our submission guidelines. Then an academic editor is assigned to carry out an editorial pre-check. That editor may ask for minor fixes, recommend rejection, or send the manuscript for full peer review.

If the paper moves to peer review, the Editorial Office invites independent reviewers and collects at least two review reports. Reviewers give detailed feedback and recommend whether the manuscript should be revised, accepted, or rejected. Authors are asked to respond to reviewer comments and revise their manuscript when needed. Some papers undergo a second round of review after revision. The academic editor (for example the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board, or a Guest Editor for a Special Issue) makes the final decision. Accepted manuscripts are then copy-edited and language-edited before publication.

Reviewers’ profile and responsibilities

Peer review is a key part of ASTESJ. Reviewers help keep the scholarly record accurate and trustworthy. All reviewers must follow ethical best practices (see COPE guidelines).

Reviewer profile (eligibility)

No conflict of interest with the authors.
Not from the same institution as any author.
No co-authorship with the authors in the past three years.
Hold a PhD or an MD where relevant.
Have relevant expertise and a record of publications in the topic area (for example, Scopus or ORCID listings).
Hold an official, recognized academic or professional affiliation.

Reviewer responsibilities

Accept assignments only when you have the expertise to evaluate the manuscript fairly.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately and decline the review if a conflict exists.
Complete reviews on time and communicate promptly if you cannot meet a deadline.
Provide clear, constructive, and specific comments that help editors and authors improve the manuscript.
Assess originality, validity of methods, accuracy of results, and relevance of conclusions.
Point out ethical concerns such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or undisclosed conflicts.
Keep the manuscript and its data confidential. Do not share or use them for your own work.
Recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected, and explain the reasons for your recommendation.
Be professional, objective, and respectful in tone. Avoid personal remarks.

Benefits of ASTESJ Volunteer Reviewers

Peer review is an essential part in the publication process, ensuring that ASTESJ maintains high-quality standards for its published papers. Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task. We are striving to recognize the efforts of reviewers.

When reviewing for ASTESJ journals you:

Receive a discount voucher of 10 USD (for each approved review) entitling you to a reduction in the article processing charge (APC) of a future submission to any ASTESJ. Vouchers are linked to your email address and can be applied online at submission or any time before acceptance. Note that vouchers cannot be used after an invoice has been issued. If your article is rejected the voucher can be reused for your next submission.
You are eligible to propose a special issue for ASTESJ. Follow the link to submit your proposal.
After reviewing more than 10 papers for ASTESJ, you can apply for an associate editor.
During manuscript submission to ASTESJ, you should mention the reviewer code in the cover letter section. Once our online system confirms your code with your registered email address, your paper will be put on express tracking, which speeds up the review process for your manuscript.
Receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
Are included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers.
Are considered for the journal’s outstanding reviewer award.
Can build your profile on Publons and have your reviewing activity automatically added for participating journals. Publons profiles can also be integrated with ORCID.

Reviewer Board (RB)

The Reviewer Board (RB) is a group of experienced researchers who give regular, high-quality reviews to support ASTESJ. RB members help ensure that manuscripts are evaluated rigorously and fairly within their area of expertise.

Term and membership

Initial appointment is two years.
Membership may be renewed or ended after the term.
RB members hold the same duties and benefits as regular reviewers, plus the specific RB requirements below.

RB responsibilities

Provide rigorous, clear, and timely review reports for manuscripts in their field.
Commit to reviewing at least three manuscripts per year.
If unable to review a particular manuscript, promptly decline and suggest alternative reviewers who meet the eligibility requirements in Section 2.1.
Follow all ethical and confidentiality rules that apply to peer review (declare conflicts of interest, keep manuscript contents private, etc.).

Benefits and recognition

RB members receive an official RB certificate.
Names of RB members are listed on the journal website as public recognition of their service.
The best reviewers are also listed on the Recognition Central for Peers page.

Invitation to Join ASTESJ Volunteer Reviewer Database

If you are interested in reviewing articles for one or more of our journals, please register your contact details, institutional affiliation, a short CV, and 5-6 keywords in line with your expertise at the following page.

The managing editor will send you a notification once approved.

Prospective reviewers may also be interested in the Publons Academy, which provides training in how to conduct peer review.

General Guidelines for Reviewers

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to the ASTES journal are reviewed by at least three experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the external editor on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

accept or decline any invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract;
suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
request an extension in case more time is required to compose a report;
let us know if anyone else, such as a student, will participate in writing the review.

As part of the assessment, reviewers will be asked:

to rate the originality, significance, quality of the presentation, scientific soundness, interest to the readers, overall merit and English level of the manuscript;
to look at the reference list of the manuscript and check if there are inappropriate self-citations;
to provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript;
to provide a detailed, constructive review report;

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest. If you are unsure whether something counts as a conflict, please email the Editorial Office for advice before accepting the review.

Examples of possible conflicts (not exhaustive)

You work at the same institution as any of the authors.
You are a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or have any academic link with any author within the past three years.
You have a close personal relationship with, or strong rivalry or antipathy toward, any of the authors.
You may gain or lose financially from the publication of the paper.
You have other non-financial conflicts (political, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, or commercial) that could bias your judgment.

What we expect from reviewers

Disclose any real or perceived conflicts that might bias you for or against the manuscript.
Decline the invitation if the conflict prevents a fair review, or disclose it and ask the Editorial Office for guidance.
If you are asked to review a manuscript you previously reviewed for another journal, this is not usually a conflict. In that case, you may tell the Editorial Office whether the manuscript has improved since the earlier review.

Please consult the COPE guidance for more details.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf.

ASTESJ operate double blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

ASTESJ offer authors the possibility to publish review reports with their paper and for reviewers to sign their open review reports; however, this will only be done at publication with your express permission. If this is the case, it will be noted in the message inviting you to review. In all other cases, review reports are considered confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.

Note that, as the reviewer, you will have access to other reviewers’ reports via the online submission system after you have submitted your report.

Timely Review Reports

ASTESJ aims to provide an efficient and high-quality publishing service to authors and to the scientific community. We ask reviewers to assist by providing review reports in a timely manner. Please contact the editorial office if you require an extension to the review deadline.

Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:

Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is accepted in its current form and encourages the authors to incorporate the comments of reviewers (if any) during their camera-ready submission.
Accept Subject to Revisions: The paper is accepted, but the authors are required to incorporate the comments of reviewers during their camera-ready submission.
Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a suitable time frame, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
Reject and Encourage Resubmission: If additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be encouraged to resubmit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.
Reject: The article has serious flaws, and/or makes no original significant contribution. No offer of resubmission to the journal is provided.

Review Report

We have listed some general instructions regarding the review report for your consideration. Please find these below.

To begin with, please consider the following guidelines:

Read the whole article as well as the supplementary material, if there is any, paying close attention to the figures, tables, data and methods.
Your report should critically analyze the article as a whole but also specific sections and the key concepts presented in the article.
Please ensure your comments are detailed so that the authors may better understand and address the points you raise.
Reviewers must not recommend excessive citation of their work (self-citations), another author’s work (honorary citations) or articles from the journal where the manuscript was submitted as a means of increasing the citations of the reviewer/authors/journal. You can provide references as needed, but they must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Please maintain a neutral tone and focus on providing constructive criticism that will help the authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated.

Review reports should contain the following:

A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.
General concept comments
Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc.
These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.
Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear. These comments should also focus on the scientific content and not on spelling, formatting or English language problems, as these can be addressed at a later stage by our internal staff.

Contents