Peer Review Process

  • Peer Review Process is a double-blind process for all articles (The reviewer does not know the author's identity and vice-versa) to guarantee unbiased reviews.
  • Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscripts before their submission to the editorial office. Manuscripts that do not match the required specifications (as defined in the authors' guidelines) will be rejected without review.
  • The editorial board will firstly evaluate all contributions for suitability for the journal. If they realize that the manuscript is out of the journal's scope, suffers from plagiarism or is less qualified, the paper can be rejected without review.
  • Manuscripts considered qualified would be sent to at least two independent professional reviewers to evaluate the paper's scientific merit.
  • The reviewers usually take from two to four weeks review a submission. Still, some papers may take longer, e.g., when they are especially complex, received during the review period of major conferences, and/or need to be sent to other reviewers
  • Possible decisions are: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, and reject. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. Revisions of papers with a "Major revision" should be resubmitted within one month (The maximum time is two months, after that, the manuscript will be withdrawn).
  • Revisions of papers with a "Minor revision" should be resubmitted within two weeks (The maximum time is one month, after that, the manuscript will be withdrawn).
  • If the authors need more time for the revision, they should contact the editorial office through the following mail: https://jaes.journals.ekb.eg/
  • Submissions of revisions of papers must be accompanied by a statement detailing what revisions were implemented and what actions were taken in response to the reviews. Also, a highlighted manuscript must be submitted aside with your response to the reviews' comments
  • Manuscript revisions must be accompanied by a statement outlining what revisions were made and what actions were taken in response to the reviews. Therefore, a highlighted document and your response to the reviews' comments must be supplied separately.

Instruction for Reviewers:

I. General Tips

For general tips on the review process, please see the tutorial video (Reviewer's guide).

The following reminders and strategies will help us continue providing the best possible peer reviews to the authors and your peers.

  • You will receive an invitation to review the manuscript, please accept or decline this invitation within 2-3 business days when possible.
  • It is preferable to receive a fast "no" than “no response”.
  • In case of no response from you within three business days, the editorial board may look for another reviewer. In this case, you may receive an automatic letter from the editorial board that his/her services are no longer required to review the manuscript.
  • Please let us know if you find yourself declining more invitations than you accept so we can better match articles to your areas of expertise.
  • If you decline the invitation to review, please explain why, especially if we misunderstood your areas of interest or skill.
  • If you accept the invitation to review, you will have 14 days to revise and submit your comments and recommendations.  Please make sure to send them on time or ahead of schedule.
  • If you need more time, please let the editorial staff know at https://jaes.journals.ekb.eg/
  • The average time provided to a reviewer in the invitation for any article's revision is usually 14 days. After that, the system will automatically move the reviewer status to (Reviewers Not Reviewed Manuscript in Review Due Date). In this case, the reviewer could receive a letter from the editorial board that his/her services are no longer required to review the manuscript.
  • In case of reviewing the modification or the corrections made by the authors based on your recommendation, you will receive an e-mail with the same manuscript ID followed by a letter (R). R1 means the first revision cycle, R2 means the second, and so on. 

II. Content of the Review

Peer review is essential and is the basis of JAUES. A good review offers a summary to the editor-in-chief and, more importantly, critiques the article's merits. In your review, please evaluate as many of the following points as is practical:

  • Language
  • Importance
  • Originality
  • Technical quality
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Discussion
  • Importance in field
  • Organization of materials
  • Quality of tables and figures
  • Abbreviations, Formulae, Units
  • References
  • Grading of Paper

Please keep in mind that comments are essential: a review with no comments to the Editor or comments to the author is not helpful in the Editor's decision-making process or the author's revision process. The Meaningful, Constructive Comments give the authors to improve their manuscript. There is no need for negativity or mean-spiritedness. Provocative, insulting comments are not allowed. The reviewer should declare that; there is not any conflict of interest.

III. Recommendation:

Based on your scientific point of view, you may choose one of the following recommendations:

1-  Accept

       (The manuscript can be published in its present form without any modifications)

2-  Publish after minor revision

     (The manuscript requires some minor/non-technical modifications before publishing it. In this case, the revised manuscript will be checked by the editorial board and will not send back to you)

3-  Major revision required

     (The manuscript requires some major/technical modifications or concerns. In this case, the revised manuscript will be sent again to you to get the final decision)

4-  Reject

     The manuscript is not suitable for publication based on your comments

IV. Earning Revision Certificate Credit by reviewing for JAUES.

You can earn Revision Certificate credits by reviewing for JAUES and immediate record at Publons profile. This feature goes together with providing a good review. Here is how the process works:

  1. Agree to a review invitation from JAUES.
  2. Submit your review by the deadline provided in the invitation.
  3. Follow the keys to providing a great review on the specified Automated page, which generates upon starting submission of revision.
  4. Once your review has been submitted, it is sent to your Publons profile and graded by the editorial staff and the Editor-in-Chief before the comments are sent to the authors.
  5. You can download your Revision Certificate from your page at Get Review Certificate. You can download all or per year.