Reviewer Policy and Guidelines

 

JAE Reviewer Policy and Guidelines

Reviewers should consider the following points before and during the peer-review process, as they constitute the essential basis for an effective, timely, and ethical assessment of a submitted manuscript:

  1. Relevant Expertise. The invited reviewer should have appropriate subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript. If the manuscript falls outside the reviewer’s area of specialisation or the reviewer does not feel sufficiently qualified to provide an informed assessment, the invitation should be declined.
  2. Prompt Response to the Review Invitation. The reviewer should accept or decline the review invitation as soon as reasonably possible. A delayed response may postpone the peer-review process and, consequently, the overall editorial handling of the manuscript, which is not in the best interests of the journal or the authors.
  3. Availability and Review Deadline. Before accepting the invitation, the reviewer should ensure that sufficient time is available to complete a thorough review within the specified review period, which is two weeks from the date on which the invitation is accepted.
  4. Access to Review Materials. Upon accepting the invitation, the reviewer will be able to access the manuscript file and the review/comments form provided for submitting feedback to the Editorial Board.
  5. Completion of the Online Review Form. Before preparing detailed comments, the reviewer should complete the general questions provided in the online review form, including the relevant multiple-choice items, as part of the formal review process.
  6. Constructive and Specific Feedback. The reviewer should provide clear, precise, and constructive comments that assist the authors in improving the manuscript. Where appropriate, comments should be inserted directly into the PDF manuscript. In addition, the reviewer should submit a separate review report identifying the principal points that the authors are expected to address in a revised version.
  7. Confidential Comments to the Editor. Any comments that the reviewer wishes to communicate only to the Editorial Board and not to the authors should be entered in the designated confidential-comments section.
  8. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools. The reviewer must not upload the manuscript, in whole or in part, to artificial intelligence tools or platforms, nor use artificial intelligence in any manner that would expose, process, reproduce, or otherwise compromise the confidential manuscript or its contents.
  9. Recommendation to Reject. If the reviewer recommends rejection, the reasons for that recommendation should be explained clearly and appropriately. Where possible, constructive suggestions should also be provided to help the authors improve the work before submitting it to another journal or venue.
  10. Confidentiality. All materials received for review, including the manuscript and review-related documents, must be treated as confidential. They must not be shown, shared, circulated, quoted, copied, or used by any other person without prior authorization from the editor or the authors, as applicable.
  11. Conflict of Interest. The reviewer must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest involving the manuscript or its authors. If such a conflict could affect the reviewer’s objectivity, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Board and, where appropriate, decline the review invitation.

Review Process

1. Accepting or Declining the Review Invitation

The Section Editor, as a member of the Editorial Board, sends the reviewer an invitation containing the manuscript title and abstract. After examining this information, the reviewer may use the link provided in the invitation message to accept or decline the review request. Acceptance initiates the formal review workflow, which consists of four steps. The review system also displays the relevant deadlines that the reviewer is expected to observe.

2. Review Workflow

Step One: After the reviewer accepts the invitation, the system displays the required review timeline and relevant deadlines. The reviewer should observe these deadlines before proceeding to the next step.

Step Two: This step explains the review procedure and provides instructions for accessing the files supplied for review, including the manuscript and the review/comments form.

Step Three: The reviewer accesses the manuscript and the accompanying review documents. If any technical problem or difficulty arises in accessing these materials, the reviewer may contact technical support, the Editor-in-Chief, or the Managing Editor for assistance. This step also includes the online multiple-choice review questions that must be completed as part of the assessment.

Step Four: After completing the online review form, uploading the manuscript with the reviewer’s annotations or comments, and submitting the review/comments form, the review process is recorded as complete. The reviewer receives confirmation of completion, and the journal is notified that the review has been submitted.

3. Conducting the Review

  1. Annotating the Manuscript. At the third stage of the review workflow, after downloading the manuscript and the review/comments form, the reviewer may open the PDF manuscript in Microsoft Edge, select the relevant word, phrase, or passage, right-click, and choose the option to add a comment. The reviewer should use these annotations to indicate clearly the revisions or clarifications requested from the authors.
  2. Comprehensive Evaluation. The manuscript should be evaluated carefully and comprehensively. Comments should be specific, accurate, and sufficiently clear for the authors to understand what is required. The reviewer should also summarize any major general points that require particular attention, provided that the recommendations remain consistent with the journal’s manuscript requirements and contribute to improving the scientific and scholarly quality of the submission.

4. Final Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, the reviewer should select the appropriate final recommendation in the review system. This may include recommending acceptance subject to the required revisions, recommending rejection with clear reasons, or requesting an additional expert opinion where further assessment is needed to support the editorial decision.