Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Journal of Advances in the Standards & Applied Sciences, uses double-blind peer review to review manuscripts. So that the reviewers do not know the author's identity and vice versa. 

The first response time is less than 72 hours and the overall time span for the review process, is less than 6 months which includes the following stages:

A) Paper registration and preliminary review (time frame of 3 days)

      • Registering the author(s) and completing their personal information and uploading of the paper by the corresponding author on the journal website.
        • The corresponding author is duty bound to protect the authors' rights, and the ASAS journal has no responsibility against any claim among the authors, as well as the authors and other authorities.
        • The corresponding author is solely responsible for sending the paper to other publications.
        • The submitted papers should not have more than 15% similarity to any other papers.
      • Following the submission of the paper by the author(s), an initial evaluation will be carried out to determine the relevance of the article to the objectives and policy line of the ASAS journal, regarding the appropriate quality in terms of structure and content, introducing new sources, respecting the opinion of the chief editor/specialist editor of the journal about the preliminary evaluation.
      • In case of a need for initial modifications of the form and content, the paper will be sent back to the corresponding author.
      • After acceptance of the paper at the initial evaluation stage, the editorial board of the journal will appoint specialized reviewer(s).

B) Double-Blind Peer Review 

      • The manuscript is sent to expert reviewer(s) chosen by the editorial board.
      • The reviewers' remarks along with a completed assessment form are evaluated by the editor in chief and a decision is made.

C) The status of the paper after the peer review process and revision 

At this stage, three decisions are possbile:

      1. Rejection of the paper by reviewers. In this case, the paper will be removed from the journal evaluation process and the author will be notified accordingly.
      2. Acceptance of the paper by reviewers without requiring any corrections. In this case, the paper will be forwarded to the final acceptance stage and will wait for its publication turn. The author will be notified to pay the printing charges based to the figure specified in the journal website.
      3.  Revision of the paper by the corresponding author. In this case, the paper is sent back to the corresponding author to be revised based on the reviewes comments. After resubmission of the revised manuscript, a short  peer reviewe may be entertained. 

Note that: 

      • The document will be returned to the relevant author for evaluation, correction of any flaws, and implementation of the reviewer's requested alterations in the event that any of the reviewer finds the work deserving of examination and thinks it requires either a full or partial revision.
      • The corresponding author must re-upload the manuscript with the necessary revisions.
      • When the reviewer's requested revisions have been confirmed as necessary, the editor in chief or editor will compare the amended version of the document with the reviewer's remarks and make the ultimate determination as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected.
      • If the manuscript is finally accepted, the responsible author will be asked to confirm his or her organisational affiliation and contact information.
      • After editing and preparation for publishing, a DOI identifier will be given to those manuscripts that were approved.
      • The papers for each issue of the journal may be downloaded for free in PDF and XML formats from the journal website as they become available.
      • The number of approved articles determines the length of time until the papers can be published.
      • It should be noted that the Editorial board may decided to give publication priority to papers with outstanding innovation, relevance to standard and standardisation or containing new initiatives, updated subjects and references.

Ethical Considerations for Reviewers


      • Keeping the information provided in the paper as confidential, is mandatory in all stages and the review process is done in anonymous manner.
      • Reviewers are obliged to help to editor in chief and the editorial board in deciding whether or not to accept a paper.
      • Reviewers should leave comments in the comments section for the author of any work that needs correction, whether partial or comprehensive.
        Reviewers are obligated to disclose any conflicts of interest as soon as they become aware of them and should refrain from making decisions based on personal interests.
      • Reviewers' assessments of the papers' quality and content should be supported by expert and scientific knowledge.
      • A new Review or more Reviews will be appointed to consider the document, and the review procedure will continue if the Reviewer fail to do so by the deadline or if their judgement does not follow the pertinent ethical norms.