For Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is a cornerstone of the editorial process in the Journal of Applied Science and Technology Trends (JASTT). As a reviewer, your critical insights help ensure the integrity, accuracy, and relevance of the manuscripts we publish. The role involves assessing the validity of the research methods, identifying any flaws or ethical concerns, and confirming whether the conclusions are supported by the presented evidence and literature.

  1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

We greatly appreciate your willingness to serve as a peer reviewer. Before accepting an invitation, please consider the following:

  • Expertise: Is the manuscript within your field of knowledge? Accept only if you feel confident in providing a rigorous, high-quality review.
  • Availability: Peer reviewing demands time and focus. Please ensure that you meet the deadline (typically within two weeks).
  • Conflict of Interest: Inform the Editor if you have any financial, professional, or personal conflicts with the authors or subject matter.


  1. Purpose and Process of Peer Review

Peer review is essential to uphold the scientific rigor and integrity of the JASTT. Each manuscript will be subjected to a double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts. The primary goals of the review are:

  • To assess the validity, originality, and significance of the research.
  • To identify methodological flaws or misinterpretations.
  • To ensure that the conclusions of the manuscript are well supported by the presented data.
  • To verify ethical compliance and proper citation of previous work.


Reviewer comments are anonymized and shared with the authors. In cases of major revisions, you may be asked to re-evaluate the revised version.

  1. Structuring Your Review Report

JASTT does not mandate a fixed structure, but the following format is strongly encouraged:

  • Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript and its contributions.
  • Major Issues: Any significant methodological, conceptual, or ethical concerns.
  • Minor Issues: Suggestions for improving clarity, grammar, citations, or formatting.


You are encouraged to:

  • Offer constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript.
  • State limitations in your expertise, if applicable.
  • Provide objective, clear, and well-substantiated comments, including recommendations for:
  • Acceptance
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Rejection

If you have comments intended solely for the Editor, please include them in the confidential section of your report.

  1. Key Review Criteria

When evaluating a manuscript, please consider:

  • Is the research novel and contributes meaningfully to its field?
  • Are the research questions and hypotheses valid?
  • Are the methods sound and ethical approval obtained (where required)?
  • Is the sample size adequate and appropriately analyzed?
  • Are the statistical tests appropriate and correctly reported?
  • Are figures and tables clear and informative?
  • Is the prior research adequately reviewed and compared?
  • Do the results justify the conclusions?
  • Are the limitations acknowledged?
  • Is the language grammatically correct and scientifically precise?
  • Are the references appropriate and complete?
  • Is the abstract a fair representation of the manuscript’s content?


  1. Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers must treat all submissions as strictly confidential:

  • Do not share the manuscript or discuss it outside the review process.
  • You may consult a colleague for input only with prior permission from the Editor-in-Chief, and their names must be disclosed in the confidential comments section.
  • Do not use any part of the manuscript for your research prior to publication.
  • Do not attempt to identify or contact authors.


  1. Conflicts of Interest

Please decline to review if:

  • You have a financial interest in the study.
  • You have previously collaborated with the authors.
  • You cannot remain objective in your evaluation.


  1. Additional Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Adhere to deadlines or request extensions promptly.
  • Notify the Editor if the manuscript appears to be under consideration elsewhere.
  • Report any suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, or data manipulation.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if you are unable to complete the review.
  • Submit reports in English and ensure they are constructive and actionable.
  • Optionally, propose commentaries if relevant and approved by the Editor.


  1. Joining Our Reviewer Community

If you are interested in becoming a regular reviewer of JASTT, we welcome your application. Please register for a reviewer account and ensure your contact details and subject expertise are updated. Our Editorial Board selects reviewers based on the topic and scientific background of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer Board

List of Reviewers