Double-Blind Review
Author and reviewer identities are protected to reduce bias and maintain fairness.
International Standards for Transparent, Ethical and High-Impact Scholarly Evaluation
The peer review process is the intellectual backbone of academic publishing. International Journal of Arts, Commerce, Science and Technology (IJACST) follows a rigorous, transparent, ethics-driven and globally aligned peer review framework designed to ensure that only high-quality, original, methodologically sound and ethically responsible research enters the permanent scholarly record.
Our review system protects academic credibility, strengthens research quality, prevents publication misconduct and supports global discoverability through structured editorial evaluation, ethical screening and expert reviewer assessment.
Ethical Screening
Plagiarism, AI misuse, fake references and data concerns are checked before review.
Expert Evaluation
Minimum two qualified subject experts evaluate eligible manuscripts.
Indexing Readiness
Accepted articles are prepared for DOI, metadata, citation and discoverability systems.
Core Commitments of the IJACST Peer Review System
This peer review framework is designed not only for authors and scholars, but also for universities, libraries, accreditation bodies, ISSN agencies, indexing evaluators, academic councils and global research communities.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewer Independence
Editorial Neutrality
Anti-Plagiarism Protocols
Ethical Publishing Standards
Transparent Revision Workflow
Structured Metadata Quality
Long-Term Discoverability
Research Must Be Evaluated on Merit, Not Identity
IJACST believes that scholarly research should be evaluated only on originality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, analytical strength, academic significance and contribution to knowledge. The journal strictly avoids discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, language background, ideology, seniority or geography.
Originality
Research must offer a meaningful and identifiable contribution.
Methodological Rigor
Study design, sampling, data and analysis must be reliable.
Ethical Integrity
Ethics approval, consent, disclosure and honesty are required.
Scholarly Impact
The work should support research, education, practice or policy.
Identity Protection and Bias Prevention Framework
IJACST follows a strict double-blind peer review system. This model reduces conscious and unconscious bias while increasing objective scholarly evaluation.
Authors Do Not Know Reviewer Identity
Reviewers Do Not Know Author Identity
Editorial Communication Is Centrally Controlled
Reviewer Reports Remain Confidential
Reviewer Selection Is Independent
Conflict Checks Are Mandatory
Complete Editorial Lifecycle from Submission to Publication
Manuscript Submission and Technical Compliance
The editorial office checks manuscript completeness, author information, ORCID where available, abstract, keywords, references, formatting, plagiarism declaration, AI-use disclosure, ethical approval documentation, funding disclosure and conflict-of-interest statements.
Editorial Screening and Plagiarism Assessment
Editors conduct desk evaluation for journal scope, originality, relevance, methodology, ethics, readability, plagiarism risk, fake references, AI hallucinations, citation manipulation, duplicate publication and authorship concerns.
Reviewer Selection and Assignment
Manuscripts passing desk screening are assigned to minimum two independent subject experts based on expertise, publication history, methodological competence, interdisciplinary relevance and conflict-of-interest status.
Rigorous Peer Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, literature quality, citation authenticity, data integrity, ethical compliance, writing clarity, structure, metadata readiness and scholarly or social impact.
Editorial Decision and Publication Workflow
Editors analyze reviewer reports, author responses and editorial observations before issuing a final decision. Accepted manuscripts move to proofreading, DOI metadata, formatting, indexing preparation and publication.
Structured Editorial Intake and Submission Validation
Immediately after submission, manuscripts undergo technical and administrative screening to ensure compliance with journal standards and indexing needs.
Manuscript Completeness
Author Information Verification
ORCID Validation Where Available
Abstract and Keyword Quality
English Title for Multilingual Papers
Reference Formatting Consistency
AI-Use Disclosure
Ethical Approval Documentation
Manuscript-Level Discoverability Before Peer Review
The editorial office also checks keyword discoverability, search-engine readability, metadata completeness, citation structure quality, Google Scholar compatibility, CrossRef metadata suitability and OAI-PMH harvesting readiness.
Keyword Discoverability
Keywords should support author visibility and academic search retrieval.
Metadata Completeness
Title, abstract, authorship, references and citation details are checked.
Google Scholar Compatibility
Article structure should be readable for academic crawlers.
CrossRef Suitability
DOI-ready metadata and citation clarity support persistent identity.
Academic Suitability and Integrity Evaluation
Before reviewer assignment, manuscripts undergo a detailed editorial screening process called desk evaluation. Manuscripts with serious plagiarism, fabricated content or unethical overlap may face desk rejection, institutional notification, publication ban or retraction consideration.
Journal Scope Alignment
Academic Seriousness
Novelty and Originality
Methodological Foundation
Plagiarism Indicators
Fake References
AI Hallucinated Citations
Unethical Authorship Practices
Subject Expert Identification and Ethical Reviewer Matching
Reviewer selection is one of the most critical stages in maintaining scholarly quality. IJACST selects reviewers based on expertise, publication history, methodological competence, research specialization, reviewer ethics awareness and editorial reliability.
Subject Expertise
Reviewer must understand the manuscript’s academic domain.
Publication History
Relevant scholarly record helps ensure informed evaluation.
Methodological Competence
Reviewer should assess data, method and analysis quality.
Conflict Check
Reviewer assignment avoids institutional, personal or financial conflicts.
Multi-Dimensional Scholarly Quality Assessment
Reviewers conduct detailed scholarly evaluation using a structured editorial scorecard. This ensures balanced assessment of research quality, ethics, clarity and impact.
Originality and Novel Contribution
Research gap, innovation level, theoretical value, policy relevance and interdisciplinary significance.
Methodology and Research Design
Research design, sampling quality, data validity, reproducibility and analytical appropriateness.
Literature and Citation Quality
Relevant literature, citation authenticity, recent sources, theoretical grounding and reference credibility.
Ethical Compliance
Plagiarism concerns, data integrity, ethics approval, consent standards, conflicts and AI-use transparency.
Writing Quality and Structure
Logical organization, academic language, figure usefulness, grammar clarity and metadata structure.
Scholarly and Social Impact
Usefulness for researchers, institutions, policy, practice, education and future research.
Final Scholarly Decision-Making System
After reviewer evaluation, editors analyze reviewer reports, author responses and editorial observations before issuing the final decision.
Accept
The manuscript satisfies scholarly, methodological and ethical standards.
Minor Revision
Small corrections are required before publication.
Major Revision
Substantial improvement is required before reconsideration.
Reject
Serious academic, methodological or ethical concerns are identified.
Desk Reject
Rejected before peer review due to scope mismatch, plagiarism or weak suitability.
Structured Revision Responsibility
Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript, highlighted corrections, point-by-point response letter and explanation of reviewer query resolution. Failure to respond within deadlines may result in withdrawal or rejection.
Revised Manuscript
Highlighted Corrections
Point-by-Point Response
Reviewer Query Explanation
Protection of Intellectual and Scholarly Integrity
Reviewers must not share manuscripts, disclose reviewer identity, use unpublished ideas, upload confidential files to public AI tools, contact authors directly or distribute editorial records. Editors must ensure neutral handling, unbiased communication, ethical oversight, transparent decisions and misconduct investigation where necessary.
No Manuscript Sharing
No Reviewer Identity Disclosure
No Use of Unpublished Ideas
No Public AI Upload
No Direct Author Contact
No Editorial Record Distribution
Human Judgment Remains Central
AI tools may assist formatting or language improvement in controlled conditions, but AI cannot replace peer review, independently approve manuscripts, create fabricated citations or weaken reviewer confidentiality.
Human Review Required
Expert judgment remains the basis of peer review.
No Fake References
AI-generated fake references are treated as misconduct.
Confidentiality Protected
Reviewers must preserve confidentiality while using digital tools.
Preparing Research for Global Discovery
Accepted manuscripts move through a professional publication workflow including DOI assignment, metadata enrichment, XML structuring, citation verification, PDF optimization, Google Scholar compatibility, CrossRef registration, OAI-PMH integration and archival preparation.
DOI Assignment
Article identity becomes persistent and citation-ready.
Metadata Enrichment
Structured metadata supports indexing and scholarly discovery.
Citation Verification
References and citation details are checked for accuracy.
Archival Preparation
Published records support long-term preservation and retrieval.
Scientific Rebuttal and Procedural Fairness
Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe reviewer misunderstanding, factual error, procedural irregularity or conflict-of-interest affected the decision. Appeals must include manuscript ID, detailed rebuttal, supporting evidence and structured scientific clarification.
Appeal Must Include
- Manuscript ID
- Decision letter reference
- Detailed scientific rebuttal
- Evidence for reconsideration
- Clear explanation of procedural concern, if any
Official Appeal Contact
editor@ijacst.com
Subject Line:
Peer Review Appeal – [Manuscript ID]
Commitment to Ethical Scholarly Communication
IJACST is committed to ethical publishing, transparent peer review, responsible editorial governance, academic fairness, scholarly discoverability and long-term research preservation.