The peer-review process is very important to ensure that the journal eventually publishes high-quality manuscripts. The peer-review process is executed in five steps:

1. Manuscript submission and editorial assessment

The manuscript is submitted through our online system and the editorial office checks the submitted manuscript to ensure that Author Guidelines have been followed. 

2. Primary evaluation and assigning Associate Editor

The Editor in chief checks the manuscript for structure, originality, interest and plagiarism. If it passes the primary evaluation, an associate editor will be assigned to handle the manuscript. If not, the manuscript will be rejected. 

3. Reviewers Invitation and Response

The associate editor who handles the manuscript will send invitations to reviewers. Reviewers will be selected based on their area of expertise and availability. Upon acceptance of the invitations and the required number of reviewers is obtained, the review process will start. 

4. Conducting Review and Journal evaluation

The reviewers will evaluate the submitted manuscript based on:

• New findings - unique contribution
• Interest to professional audience                               
• The importance of the findings to science
• Clarity of materials presented without excessive jargon
• Purpose and scope of the manuscript are clearly presented
• The literature is adequate discussed to introduce the purpose of the manuscript.
• The body of the manuscript is well-organized and substantive
• Adequate number of graphs or charts
• The discussion/conclusion section(s) adequately discuss the findings
• The discussion/conclusion section(s) relate the findings of the manuscript adequately to current literature       
• Reference list is of ASE Style
• The manuscript is written with the Correct language           
• Methodology is adequately explained
• Appropriate statistical tests are used.                                   

The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept it as is, needs minor revisions, needs major revisions or reject. The associate editor in charge needs major revisions will consider all the reviewer's opinion before making an overall decision. Then the editor-in-chief will inform the corresponding author by email the decision along with the comments of all reviewers. 

5. Responding to peer review comments

In responding to peer review comments, the corresponding author should:

• Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers
• Furnish a response letter  describes  the revisions that have been made in details
• Provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any comments you do not disagree with
• Show the major revisions in the text, by highlighting the changes
• Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time-frame indicated

If accepted, the manuscript will be sent to production. 

Flow chart of Peer Review Process