Guide for Reviewers

The Academic Science Journal (ASJ) greatly values the contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scientific credibility of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and confidential evaluations of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers should consider the following:

Expertise: The manuscript should fall within the reviewer’s area of knowledge and competence.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that may affect, or appear to affect, their objectivity.
Availability: Reviewers should accept the invitation only if they can complete the review within the requested deadline.
Confidentiality: Reviewers must be able to treat the manuscript and all related materials as confidential documents.

If a reviewer feels unqualified, has a conflict of interest, or cannot complete the review on time, the reviewer should promptly inform the editorial office.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review aims to help the editor make an informed decision and to help authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific value of their manuscript. Reviewers should assess the manuscript fairly and objectively, focusing on its scientific merit, originality, methodology, presentation, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Reviewer comments should be constructive and respectful. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

Suggested Structure of the Reviewer Report

ASJ does not require a fixed structure for reviewer reports; however, reviewers are encouraged to organize their comments as follows:

Summary of the manuscript: A brief statement describing the purpose and main findings of the study.
General assessment: Overall evaluation of the manuscript’s originality, significance, methodology, and clarity.
Major comments: Substantial issues that must be addressed, such as problems in the study design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, ethical approval, results, or conclusions.
Minor comments: Issues related to clarity, formatting, language, references, figures, tables, or presentation.
Recommendation: A clear recommendation to the editor.

Points to Consider During Review

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate the following aspects where applicable:

Is the manuscript within the scope of ASJ?
Is the research question clear, valid, and scientifically relevant?
Is the study original and does it add value to the existing literature?
Is the methodology appropriate for answering the research question?
Are the materials, methods, equipment, and procedures described in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility?
Is the sample size or dataset sufficient and justified?
Are the statistical methods appropriate and correctly reported?
Are ethical approval, informed consent, or other ethical requirements provided where applicable?
Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data?
Are the figures and tables clear, accurate, and necessary?
Do the conclusions follow logically from the results?
Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?
Is the abstract an accurate and balanced summary of the study?
Are the references relevant, current, and properly used?
Are there inappropriate citations, excessive self-citations, or citations that do not support the stated claims?
Is the language clear and understandable?
Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or other publication ethics issues?

Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
Unable to Review

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor, based on the reviewers’ reports, the scientific merit of the manuscript, ethical compliance, and the journal’s editorial standards.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary. These comments should not contradict the comments provided to the authors. Confidential comments may include ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, conflicts of interest, or other issues that should be considered by the editorial office.

Timeliness

Reviewers should submit their reports on or before the agreed deadline. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, the reviewer should notify the editorial office as soon as possible so that an extension or alternative reviewer may be arranged.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript or its data outside the peer-review process without permission from the editor.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, or methods obtained during the review process for personal, professional, or research advantage.

If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague about a specific technical point, prior permission must be obtained from the editor, and the colleague’s name should be disclosed to the editorial office. The colleague must also agree to maintain confidentiality.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, figures, tables, data, or supplementary materials to public or third-party artificial intelligence tools, language models, or online platforms, because this may violate confidentiality and data protection requirements.

If reviewers use any tool to assist with language checking or technical assessment, they remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their review. The use of such tools must not replace the reviewer’s own expert judgment.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they have any conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

Recent collaboration with any of the authors.
Personal, academic, financial, or institutional relationship with the authors.
Direct competition with the authors.
Prior knowledge of the manuscript that may compromise blind review.
Any situation that may create actual or perceived bias.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest to the editor before accepting or continuing the review.

Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should immediately inform the editor if they suspect:

Duplicate or redundant publication.
Data fabrication or falsification.
Image manipulation.
Unethical research involving humans, animals, biological materials, or sensitive data.
Undeclared conflicts of interest.
Inappropriate authorship.
Manipulation of citations or peer review.

Reviewers should provide clear evidence or explanation when reporting such concerns.

Applications to Review

ASJ welcomes qualified researchers who wish to contribute as peer reviewers. The editorial board selects reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis according to expertise, publication record, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Researchers interested in reviewing for ASJ may contact the editorial office and provide their academic affiliation, areas of expertise, ORCID iD, and recent publications.