The Advanced Journal of Science and Innovation (AJSI) uses a structured peer-review process to evaluate the originality, scientific quality, methodological soundness, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first checked by the editorial office to ensure that they:

• Fit the journal’s aims and scope.

• Meet the basic submission and formatting requirements.

• Present original and potentially valuable scholarly work.

• Include appropriate ethical statements where required.

• Are not under consideration by another journal.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, fail to meet the basic submission requirements, or raise serious ethical concerns may be rejected before peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected according to their academic expertise, research experience, availability, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal does not select reviewers who have a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative conflict with the authors or the submitted work.

3. Peer-Review Model

AJSI uses a double-anonymized peer-review process when the manuscript and review files allow the identities of both authors and reviewers to remain confidential.

Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript file. Author information should be provided separately through the submission system where applicable.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors, and authors must not attempt to identify the reviewers.

4. Review Process

Each manuscript considered suitable for review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. In some cases, the editor may request an additional review when the reports are conflicting, incomplete, or insufficient for reaching a fair decision.

Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the following general criteria:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

• Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.

• Clarity of the research question or objectives.

• Adequacy of the methodology and research design.

• Accuracy and transparency of the analysis.

• Validity of the results and conclusions.

• Quality and completeness of the references.

• Compliance with research ethics and reporting standards.

• Quality of presentation and organization.

5. Editorial Decisions

Following the review process, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial or production requirements.

• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.

• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision and may be sent for further review.

• Reject and Resubmit: The manuscript has potential but requires major redevelopment and may be considered as a new submission.

• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor after considering the reviewers’ reports, the editorial assessment, the manuscript’s quality, and the journal’s policies.

Reviewers provide recommendations and do not make the final publication decision.

6. Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

• A revised version of the manuscript.

• A detailed response to each reviewer comment.

• A clear explanation of all changes made.

• A justification for any reviewer comment that was not followed.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and unpublished information must be treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, use, copy, distribute, or retain confidential manuscript content except as necessary for the review and editorial process.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before handling or reviewing a manuscript.

A person with a relevant conflict of interest will not participate in the editorial decision or review process for that manuscript.

Authors must also disclose relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal’s policies.

9. Review Timeline

The journal aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review. Review times may vary depending on the subject area, reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional reviews.

Authors may contact the editorial office if a manuscript has remained without an update for an unusually long period.

10. Ethical Concerns During Review

If a manuscript or review process raises concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, authorship disputes, unethical research, citation manipulation, or peer-review manipulation, the journal may suspend the review and conduct an investigation in accordance with its Publishing Ethics policy.

11. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant error, misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or conflict of interest affected the decision.

An appeal must:

• Be submitted in writing to the editorial office.

• Clearly identify the manuscript and decision.

• Explain the specific grounds for the appeal.

• Address factual or procedural issues rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision. An appeal may result in confirmation of the original decision, reconsideration, or referral for an additional assessment.

12. Post-Publication Review

AJSI recognizes that scholarly discussion may continue after publication. The journal may investigate credible post-publication concerns and may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

For detailed information about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and preparing review reports, reviewers should consult the Reviewer Guidelines.