All submitted manuscripts considered for publication undergo a peer-review evaluation by at least two reviewer-experts. Peer-review evaluation is conducted to assist editors in making editorial decisions and providing authors with suggestions for improvement where necessary.

AJSE ensures a fair review process by cooperating with established and renowned professors, authors, academicians, and reviewers. AJSE is committed to operative, efficient peer-review and aims to provide authors with the first decision within 2-3 months after the submission, depending on the work speed of reviewers.

 The peer reviews are carried out by reviewers from the members of the journal’s reviewer bank. The reviewers are committed to objective and fair double-blind peer reviews of submitted manuscripts and evaluate manuscripts following:

Invited reviewers should use professional judgement to accept or decline the offer to review manuscripts in a timely manner so that alternative reviewers can be contacted and peer-review is conducted promptly. In case of any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive relationships or other connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately declare their conflicts of interest to the editors and decline the invitation to review.

Journal AJSE provides reviewers training - presents the review form’s structure and specificity, and stresses the essential points that should be considered while realizing the review. The editorial staff is regularly reconsidering the review form for further updates and improvements, taking into account reviews’ suggestions and remarks as well as the previous experience. 

Peer Review Process

Every submitted manuscript proceeds through a rigorous double-blind peer-review process.

The review process is realized through the official site of the journal - OJS/PKP Platform, to which the manuscripts are submitted.

The editors evaluate submitted manuscripts from the point of view of compliance to the topics and formal requirements of the journal. If the article does not comply with the subject-matter of the periodical, it is excluded from revision, and the author is notified about it.

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must not be exposed to or discussed with others except if authorize by the Editor-in-Chief. Unpublished manuscripts and their contents are not be used for research by reviewers or editors without a written consent provided by authors. This applies to all reviewers, including those who reject the review invitation.

Reviews are conducted objectively and observations are articulated clearly with accompanying arguments for authors to use them to improve the manuscript. Reviewers are to identify any similarity overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published or unpublished work.

After reviewing the manuscript may be:

  • - Rejected,
  • - To be revised and resubmitted,
  • - Accepted with minimum changes,

The review includes:

  • - Evaluation of the paper content and judgment on whether it is suitable for publication.
  • - Enumeration of methodology and tools errors (if there are any).
  • - Suggestions for the text improvement.

The Editor-in-Chief decides which manuscripts are to be published by taking into consideration the validity, novelty and originality of the paper, its importance to readers and researchers, and the peer-review reports. The Editor-in-Chief may consult other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

In case of contradictory verdict from two reviewers, the manuscript is discussed on the session of the Editorial Board, which makes a decision on rejection or the need for the further review by the third expert whose verdict is the final.

The accepted articles are published in order and topic. The Editorial Board has a full right of making decision on an extraordinary publication of the article.