Peer Review Policy

Journal of Aerospace Science and Technology, uses double-blind peer review to review manuscripts. So that the reviewers do not know the author's identity and vice versa. 


reviewers’ responsibilities  


  • Confidentiality of article information must be observed in all areas. The article review process is to be done anonymously.
  • Reviewers should judge articles at the appropriate time and assist the editorial team in deciding whether or not to accept the article.
  • The referees' suggestions regarding the published articles should be submitted in the form of judging forms and in the comment section for the author and editor.
  • Reviewers should refrain from judging articles with conflict of interest and report any conflict of interest as soon as possible.
  • Reviewers' judgments about the quality and content of articles should be based on professional and objective opinions.

Peer Review Process

Articles that have been prepared accordance to 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 approval of the article file by the editor, the article will be sent to the editorial board of the journal for suggesting reviewers through the journal website. The submitted article will be reviewed within three to one working week in terms of compliance with the framework of the publication (thematic focus, format and writing).

b. After suggesting the reviewers by the editorial board, the articles will be sent to those reviewers through the site and the reviewers received an e-mail with the link in order to accept or decline handling the paper. The status of the article will be changed to "sent to the reviewers".

Note: If the article is in the " sent to the reviewers " state, some reviewers have reviewed the article 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, and if the journal do 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: The follow-up letter for reviewers who confirmed handling of paper will be sent to them or followed up by telephone within certain period of time. Also, a reminding letter will be sent to the reviewers who have not responded for confirmation of handling paper within certain period of time.

e. The referees, by clicking on the link which sent by the journal website or by entering through the login section of the journal website, view the files submitted by the editor. Reviewers finished the procedure of checking paper by completing the reviewer form, announcing the need to review or rejecting the article by providing explanations & at last click on the confirmation button. The editor will be observed the completed form in this way.

f. Reviewing the paper will remain open until the determined time of reviewing, 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 which are needed for correcting the format of document along with 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 rejected, 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. Corrected paper must be submitted by the author through website in order to confirm by final reviewer.

h. The state of highlighted corrected paper which is sent through website 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: Accepting or rejecting the article in the first or final reviewing stage does not depend only on the opinions of the reviewers. It also depends on the opinion of the editorial board according to the opinions of the reviewers. The expert opinion of the editorial board members and the editor determines the final result in each stage.

i. Articles with the status of "in need of revision (minor /general revision)" in case of doing all comments of reviewers, will change to accepted. In case of any problem in doing corrections, final reviewer will send the needed corrections for author/authors & the status will change to "in need of revision (minor/total revision)". Then, sending the corrected paper & reviewing by final reviewer is repeated until acceptance of paper.

j. The list of accepted articles will be included in the "Articles in Press" section after paying the literary editing fee.