Advanced Scientific Research Journal

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a central component of scholarly publishing. Advanced Scientific Research uses peer review to assist editors in evaluating the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

The peer-review process also provides authors with constructive scholarly feedback that may help improve the clarity, methodology, interpretation and presentation of their work.

Editorial Independence Peer reviewers provide expert recommendations to the editor. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

2. Peer-Review Model

Advanced Scientific Research generally follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process, where practicable.

⚖

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Where the journal's workflow permits, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process. This is intended to support objective and impartial scholarly assessment.

Practical Limitation Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed. Subject area, citation patterns, writing style, preprints, conference presentations or other publicly available information may sometimes allow identities to be inferred.

3. Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts normally pass through the following stages:

1

Submission

2

Editorial Screening

3

Reviewer Selection

4

Peer Review

5

Revision

6

Final Decision

Initial Editorial Screening

Before external review, editors may assess whether a manuscript falls within the journal's scope and meets basic submission, originality, ethical and formatting requirements.

Manuscripts may be declined at the editorial screening stage when they are clearly outside the journal's scope, fail basic requirements or are unsuitable for further consideration.

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience and suitability for the subject matter of the manuscript.

🎓

Subject Expertise

Reviewers should possess appropriate knowledge of the manuscript's subject area or methodology.

🔬

Research Experience

Relevant scholarly or research experience may be considered when selecting reviewers.

⚖

Independence

Reviewers should be able to provide an independent and objective assessment.

🚫

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers with relevant conflicts may be excluded from reviewing a manuscript.

5. Peer-Review Criteria

Reviewers may consider the following aspects when assessing a manuscript:

Originality and significance of the research.
Relevance to the scope of Advanced Scientific Research.
Clarity of the research objectives or questions.
Appropriateness of the methodology.
Quality and adequacy of data or evidence.
Validity of analysis and interpretation.
Logical organization and presentation.
Appropriate use of references and scholarly literature.
Ethical compliance where applicable.
Quality of tables, figures and supplementary material.
Clarity of conclusions and contribution to the field.

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

⏱

Timely Review

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

🔍

Objective Assessment

Reviews should focus on the manuscript rather than the author's identity, institution or personal characteristics.

💬

Constructive Comments

Reviewer comments should be professional, specific, evidence-based and useful to the authors.

🔒

Confidentiality

Reviewers must keep manuscript information and review communications confidential.

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Examples may include:

Current or recent collaboration with the authors.
Close personal or professional relationships.
Direct competition involving closely related unpublished work.
Financial interests relevant to the manuscript.
Institutional relationships that may compromise impartiality.

Declining a Review A reviewer should decline the assignment if a conflict of interest prevents an independent and impartial evaluation.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers should not:

Share the manuscript with unauthorized persons.
Discuss unpublished findings with others.
Use unpublished information for personal research or competitive advantage.
Copy substantial portions of the manuscript.
Contact the authors directly about the manuscript unless authorized by the editorial office.

9. Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review

Reviewers should exercise particular caution when using artificial intelligence or generative AI systems during peer review.

Unpublished manuscripts, confidential reviewer comments, author information and other protected material should not be uploaded to an external AI system where doing so could compromise confidentiality.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment.

Related Advanced Scientific Research Policy For detailed requirements concerning AI-assisted technologies, please consult the Advanced Scientific Research AI & Generative AI Policy .

10. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

✓

Accept

Manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.

M

Minor Revision

Limited revisions are required before final consideration.

R

Major Revision

Significant changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

×

Reject

Manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form.

Important Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor may consider the complete review record and exercise independent editorial judgment when making the final decision.

11. Manuscript Revision

When revision is requested, authors should respond carefully to reviewer comments and submit the revised manuscript within the specified period.

Authors are encouraged to provide a structured response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed.

Recommended Response Format

Reviewer Comment → Author Response → Manuscript Change Authors should identify the reviewer comment, explain the response and indicate where the corresponding change was made in the revised manuscript.

12. Editorial Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, misunderstanding or procedural issue materially affected the decision.

Appeals should provide a clear and reasoned explanation rather than simply disagreeing with the reviewers.

The editorial team may review the appeal and, where appropriate, seek additional expert advice.

Editorial Independence An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The final decision following an appeal remains an editorial matter.

13. Reviewer Recognition

Advanced Scientific Research values the contribution of qualified peer reviewers to maintaining scholarly quality.

Subject to confidentiality requirements, the journal may recognize reviewer contributions through appropriate acknowledgement mechanisms.

Reviewer identities will not be publicly disclosed in connection with individual manuscripts when the journal's double-anonymous review model applies.

Advanced Scientific Research Peer Review at a Glance

Stage	Responsible Party	Purpose
1. Submission	Author	Submit original manuscript and required declarations.
2. Initial Screening	Editorial Team	Scope, completeness, originality and basic ethical checks.
3. Reviewer Selection	Editor	Identify appropriate independent subject experts.
4. Peer Review	Reviewers	Evaluate quality, methodology, originality and contribution.
5. Revision	Author	Respond to reviewer comments and improve the manuscript.
6. Final Decision	Editor	Make the editorial decision based on the complete record.

Advanced Scientific Research

Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose of Peer Review

2. Peer-Review Model

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

3. Peer-Review Process

Initial Editorial Screening

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Subject Expertise

Research Experience

Independence

Conflicts of Interest

5. Peer-Review Criteria

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Timely Review

Objective Assessment

Constructive Comments

Confidentiality

7. Conflict of Interest

8. Confidentiality

9. Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review

10. Editorial Decisions

Accept

Minor Revision

Major Revision

Reject

11. Manuscript Revision

Recommended Response Format

12. Editorial Appeals

13. Reviewer Recognition

Advanced Scientific Research Peer Review at a Glance

Quality Through Independent Scholarly Review