Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Peta Journal of Applied Sciences and Emerging Technologies (PJASET) uses peer review to ensure that submitted manuscripts meet high standards of scientific quality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, originality, and relevance to applied sciences, engineering, computing, and emerging technologies.

1
Purpose
PJASET uses peer review to ensure submitted manuscripts meet high standards of scholarly and scientific quality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, originality, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
2
Review Model

PJASET operates a double-blind peer review process:

●
Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
●
Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
●
Authors must submit a blinded manuscript containing no names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or self-identifying statements.
3
Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening to confirm:

●
Fit with the journal's aims and scope
●
Basic scientific and scholarly quality and clarity
●
Compliance with formatting and ethical requirements
●
Similarity and plagiarism screening, where applicable
Manuscripts may be desk-rejected if they are clearly outside the journal's scope or do not meet minimum scientific, academic, ethical, or presentation standards.
4
Reviewer Selection
●
Typically, two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. A third reviewer may be appointed where reports conflict or additional specialist expertise is required.
●
Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant research experience, and their ability to provide fair and constructive feedback.
●
PJASET seeks to maintain a diverse reviewer pool representing different disciplines, institutions, regions, and perspectives.
5
Conflicts of Interest (COI)

Reviewers and editors must declare potential conflicts of interest and decline involvement when appropriate, including situations involving:

●
Recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, supervision, or a close personal relationship with an author
●
Financial, political, professional, or other interests that could bias judgment
●
Direct competitive or adversarial relationships that could impair objectivity
6
Confidentiality
●
Submissions, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential.
●
Reviewers must not share, cite, distribute, disclose, or use manuscript content before publication.
●
Reviewer identity is protected under the double-blind review model unless explicitly disclosed by the reviewer and permitted by the journal.
7
Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

● Originality and contribution to scientific knowledge or professional practice
● Scientific and technical background and engagement with relevant literature
● Methodological rigor and appropriateness of research design, experiments, computational methods, simulations, or analytical approaches
● Quality of evidence, analysis, validation, logic, and interpretation
● Research ethics and responsible conduct, including human participants, datasets, experiments, privacy, and approvals where relevant
● Clarity, organization, figures, tables, and academic writing quality
● Scientific significance and relevance to PJASET's readership
8
Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial outcomes include:

Accept
Minor Revisions
Limited changes required
Major Revisions
Substantive changes required
Reject
Does not meet journal requirements
Revise & Resubmit
New submission after substantial reworking
Final publication decisions are made by the Editor or Editorial Team, taking reviewer reports and the journal's editorial standards into consideration.
9
Revision and Author Response

Authors submitting a revised manuscript must provide:

●
A response letter addressing each reviewer and editor comment point by point
●
A revised manuscript, preferably with tracked changes or a clear change log
If an author disagrees with a reviewer or editor comment, the author should respond respectfully and provide an appropriate scientific or scholarly justification.
10
Reviewer Conduct and Quality

Reviews must be:

●
Respectful, objective, and evidence-based
●
Constructive and specific, with major and minor issues clearly distinguished
Prohibited behavior: personal attacks, discriminatory language, coercive citation demands, inappropriate requests, or comments unrelated to scholarly improvement.
11
Use of AI Tools

To protect manuscript confidentiality and the integrity of peer review:

●
Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to external AI tools or services that retain data or use submitted content for training.
●
Limited AI assistance for language polishing of a review may be used only when no confidential manuscript content is disclosed.
●
Any AI assistance that materially influences a review's conclusions must be disclosed to the editor.
12
Research Integrity and Misconduct

PJASET may take appropriate action, including rejection, correction, retraction, or restrictions on future submissions, in cases involving:

●
Plagiarism or duplicate submission/publication
●
Fabrication or falsification of data, results, figures, or experimental records
●
Manipulated peer review or fabricated reviewer identities
●
Citation manipulation or undisclosed conflicts of interest
Concerns regarding potential misconduct should be reported confidentially to the PJASET editorial office.
13
Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision within 14 days by providing a clear written rationale based on one or more of the following:

●
A procedural error
●
A factual misunderstanding
●
Credible evidence of bias
Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or an independent editorial member. The decision following the appeal review is final.
14
Recordkeeping
PJASET retains relevant editorial and peer-review records securely for administrative, audit, quality-assurance, and research-integrity purposes. Access to these records is restricted to authorized editorial personnel.
Editorial Independence
Peer-review recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not determine them automatically. Final decisions remain the responsibility of the PJASET Editor or Editorial Team and are based on scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and the journal's editorial standards.