The Journal of Aerospace Science and Technology uses double-blind peer review to review manuscripts, so the reviewers do not know the author's identity or vice versa.
(https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)
Articles that have been prepared in accordance with the writing criteria of the "Journal of Aerospace Science and Technology" and have completed and submitted the supplementary files of the author commitment and the conflict of interest form correctly will be judged in the following steps:
a. After the editor approves the article file, the article will be sent to the editorial board of the journal for suggestions of reviewers through the journal website. The submitted article will be reviewed within three to one working week for compliance with the publication framework (thematic focus, format, and writing).
b. After the editorial board suggests the reviewers, the articles are sent to them through the site. The reviewers receive an e-mail with the link to accept or decline to handle the paper. The status of the article is changed to "sent to the reviewers."
Note: If the article is in the " sent to the reviewers " state, some reviewers have reviewed it, and some have not yet responded.
c. Each article is, in most cases, sent to 4 or more reviewers. If the acceptance of handling the paper by selected reviewers reduces the number of reviewers to less than three, the editor will appoint new reviewers with the concurrence of the editorial board or by his own choice for the paper.
d. The referees who have confirmed the link to handle the paper have 15 days to review and announce the result to the secretariat of the journal. If the journal does not receive a response within the specified time, the editor will appoint new reviewers with the concurrence of the editorial board or by their choice for the paper.
Note: A follow-up letter will be sent to reviewers who confirmed handling the paper or followed up by telephone within a certain period of time. Also, a reminder letter will be sent to reviewers who have not responded to confirm handling paper within a certain period of time.
e. The referees can view the files submitted by the editor by clicking on the link sent by the journal website or by entering through the login section of the journal website. Reviewers complete the procedure of checking the paper by completing the reviewer form, announcing the need to review or reject the article by providing explanations, and finally clicking on the confirmation button. The editor will observe the completed form in this way.
f. Reviewing the paper will remain open until the determined time of review, and after the expiration of this deadline, if three referees have answered, their opinions will be summarized, and they are ready to return to the author for scientific corrections. The file is also checked by Hamtayab (Hamtayab is a service that helps editors to verify the originality of papers). Overlaps' document, probable changes that are needed for correcting the document format, and the reviewers' comments are returned to the author.
g. The status of the article will be changed to "Non-acceptance (based on the opinion of the judges)" if the majority of the reviewers reject, and a letter will be sent by the site to the authors. If the majority of the reviewers declare the need for revision, the status of the article will be changed to "Needs revision (minor/general revision)" and a letter will be sent by the site to the author to be the author for revising the paper within the period announced by the publication. The corrected paper must be submitted by the author through the website in order to be confirmed by the final reviewer.
h. The state of the highlighted corrected paper sent through the website is changed to "reviewed by the author." The corrected paper is then submitted to the final reviewer through the journal website, and the status of the article is changed to "Submitted to the reviewers." The final reviewer is usually one of the reviewers of the first step who has more scientific corrective comments.
Note: The editorial board's and reviewers' expert opinions determine the final result in each stage, but it is not the only factor in determining whether to accept or reject the article in the first or final review stage.
i. Articles with the status of "in need of revision (minor /general revision)" in case of making all comments of reviewers will change to accept. In case of any problem in doing corrections, a final reviewer will send the needed corrections for the author/authors & the status will change to "in need of revision (minor/total revision)". Then, sending the corrected paper & reviewing by the final reviewer is repeated until acceptance of the paper.
j. The list of accepted articles will be included in the "Articles in Press" section after paying the literary editing fee.
