Peer Review Policy

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Submitted manuscripts are first checked by the editorial office or assigned editor for completeness, journal scope, file requirements, plagiarism concerns, ethical declarations, language clarity, and basic formatting.

Manuscripts that are incomplete, outside the journal scope, or clearly unsuitable may be returned to authors or rejected before peer review.

2. Peer Review Model

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may be sent to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. AEEESJ uses a confidential peer-review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed publicly unless a specific open-review arrangement is declared by the journal and agreed by participants.

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication background, availability, and absence of known conflicts of interest.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Evaluate the manuscript objectively and constructively.
• Declare conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation.
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content and review materials.
• Assess originality, methodology, technical quality, presentation, references, and relevance.
• Provide clear recommendations and comments to support editorial decisions.

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer comments and editorial assessment, the decision may be: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject. The editor may request additional reviews when needed.

Final editorial decisions are made by the editor or editorial authority assigned by the journal. Reviewer recommendations support the decision but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

5. Revision and Re-review

Authors may be asked to revise the manuscript and submit a response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to reviewers for further assessment.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers should not handle manuscripts where there is a conflict of interest, including recent collaboration, institutional conflict, personal relationship, financial interest, or any condition that may affect impartial judgment.