Reviewers Guidelines

Overview of the Review Process

The AKSU Journal of Engineering and Technology (AKSUJET) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure objectivity, fairness, and academic excellence in the evaluation of all manuscripts. This process serves as a critical quality assurance mechanism that enables editors to make informed publication decisions while helping authors improve their work through constructive feedback.

Every manuscript submitted to AKSUJET is evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the subject area. When reviewer opinions differ significantly, the manuscript may be assigned to a third reviewer for further assessment.

Steps in the Review Process

1. Initial Screening:
   Upon submission, the editorial office screens each manuscript for compliance with the journal’s formatting, scope, and ethical standards. Submissions that do not meet these preliminary requirements are returned to authors for correction or declined without external review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers:
   Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are forwarded to reviewers with appropriate expertise. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process.

3. Peer Evaluation:
   Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, scientific rigor, clarity, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field of engineering and technology.

4. Reviewer Recommendations:
   Reviewers provide detailed written reports and recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept as submitted

• Accept with minor revisions

• Major revisions required

• Resubmit for further review

• Reject (with justification)

5. Editorial Decision:
   The Editor-in-Chief or designated associate editor reviews all reports and makes the final decision to accept, reject, or request revision. Only editors have the authority to finalize a publication decision.

6. Revision and Resubmission:
   Authors are invited to revise manuscripts based on reviewer feedback. Revised submissions must include a detailed response letter addressing all comments.

7. Final Acceptance and Proofing:
   After approval of the revised version, an Acceptance Certificate is issued. The manuscript then proceeds to formatting, proofing, and publication in the next journal issue.

Guidelines for Reviewers

The credibility of AKSUJET depends heavily on the professionalism and integrity of its reviewers. Reviewers are therefore expected to adhere strictly to the following principles:

1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts are considered privileged communications. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any information from a manuscript for personal benefit or research advantage. The content must remain confidential before, during, and after the review process.

2. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews should be conducted impartially and focus on the content rather than the authors’ personal attributes, affiliations, or backgrounds. Discrimination based on nationality, religion, gender, or institutional affiliation is strictly prohibited.

3. Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest occurs when a reviewer’s personal or professional interests could bias their evaluation.
Reviewers must immediately notify the editorial office if such a situation arises and decline the review. Examples include competitive relationships, collaboration with the author(s), or any form of personal association.

4. Plagiarism and Ethical Violations

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, or any ethical breach, they must report it confidentially to the editor. Reviewers must never exploit unpublished data or ideas from a manuscript for personal use.

5. Review Quality

Each review should provide constructive, detailed, and evidence-based feedback. Critiques must be clearly written and supported by scholarly reasoning. Hostile, vague, or unsubstantiated comments are not acceptable.

6. Timeliness

Reviewers should accept invitations only when they can complete the review within the stipulated time (normally 12–14 days). If a delay becomes unavoidable, reviewers must promptly inform the editor.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following aspects when assessing manuscripts:

• Originality and novelty of the study

• Scientific and technical soundness

• Clarity of presentation and logical flow

• Relevance to engineering practice and scholarship

• Appropriateness of methods and data interpretation

• Adherence to ethical standards

Review Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept – The paper meets all publication standards and requires no further revision.

2. Minor Revisions Required – The paper is suitable for publication with slight improvements.

3. Major Revisions Required – Substantial changes are needed before reconsideration.

4. Resubmit Elsewhere – The paper may be more appropriate for another journal.

5. Reject – The paper fails to meet the journal’s standards or ethical requirements.

All recommendations must be supported by clear, factual, and constructive comments.

Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge the vital contribution of reviewers to the journal’s quality, AKSUJET issues Review Certificates upon completion of a review. Reviewers who consistently demonstrate excellence in evaluation may be considered for appointment to the Editorial Board.