Peer Review Process

The American Journal of Applied Sciences (TAJAS)
ISSN: 2689-0992

The American Journal of Applied Sciences uses peer review to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and reliability of submitted manuscripts. The process helps authors improve their work and supports informed editorial decisions.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial office checks each submission for completeness, compliance with author guidelines, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The initial assessment considers:

• Originality and contribution to applied sciences.

• Clarity of the research objectives and presentation.

• Suitability of the methods and supporting evidence.

• Ethical approvals and permissions, where applicable.

• Funding, authorship, and conflict-of-interest declarations.

• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts may be returned for clarification or rejected before external review if they fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet its basic requirements. Passing this stage does not guarantee acceptance.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Suitable research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.

Authors must provide a separate title page and an anonymized manuscript, removing identifying information from the text and file properties. Although the journal takes steps to preserve anonymity, identities may sometimes be inferred from preprints, citations, or the research itself.

3. Reviewer Selection

Editors select reviewers according to their expertise, independence, availability, and ability to assess the manuscript fairly.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline assignments where these could compromise their judgment. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but reviewer selection remains the editor’s responsibility.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess:

• Scientific significance, originality, and practical relevance.

• Research design and methodological rigor.

• Adequacy of experimental controls, sampling, and validation.

• Appropriateness of statistical or computational analysis.

• Accuracy and clarity of results, tables, figures, and equations.

• Reproducibility and availability of supporting information.

• Whether conclusions are supported by the findings.

• Recognition of limitations and relevant previous research.

• Compliance with ethical and reporting requirements.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and an editorial recommendation. Requests for additional analysis or experiments should be relevant and proportionate to the manuscript’s claims.

5. Editorial Decisions

The editor considers the reviewers’ reports and the manuscript’s scientific and ethical merits. Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.

• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required.

• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before further assessment.

• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication or contains significant unresolved concerns.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision; the final decision rests with the editor. Where reports conflict substantially, an additional independent review may be requested.

6. Revisions and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise must provide:

• An updated manuscript.

• A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

• An explanation of changes and evidence-based reasons for any disagreement.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers. Further revision rounds may be necessary.

Authors should meet the stated revision deadline or request an extension. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Acceptance and Publication

Acceptance is issued only when the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, reporting, and ethical requirements.

Accepted articles proceed to copyediting, formatting, and proof preparation. Authors must check proofs carefully and respond to queries. Substantial changes to methods, results, conclusions, or authorship after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further review.

8. Review Timelines

Review duration depends on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and author response times.

The editorial office communicates decisions and revision deadlines to the corresponding author. Authors may contact the journal for a submission status update.

Acceptance or publication by a particular date cannot be guaranteed before the assessment process is complete.

9. Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Manuscripts, supporting files, and review correspondence are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not share unpublished material without authorization or use it for personal advantage.

Reviewers must provide respectful, objective feedback and report suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, or ethical concerns to the editor.

Citation suggestions must have a scholarly justification. Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase their own citation counts or those of a particular journal.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality protections.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could affect impartial assessment and recuse themselves where necessary.

Submissions from editors or editorial board members undergo independent handling. The submitting individual takes no part in reviewer selection or the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Publication charges and commercial interests do not influence review outcomes. Payment does not guarantee acceptance, favorable reviews, or preferential treatment.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence to the editorial office. Appeals should identify specific concerns about the assessment or decision.

The journal may seek independent editorial advice when reviewing an appeal. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, or the integrity of the process are assessed under the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.

Contact

For questions about peer review, submission status, revisions, or appeals, please contact the editorial office through the journal’s official Contact page.