Confidential Review
Manuscripts and review reports must be treated as privileged scholarly documents.
Peer Review as the Intellectual Foundation of Scholarly Publishing
Peer review is the intellectual foundation of scholarly publishing. International Journal of Arts, Commerce, Science and Technology (IJACST) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated on academic merit, originality, methodology, ethical compliance and contribution to knowledge.
Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest and provide objective, constructive, timely and evidence-based evaluation. The purpose of these guidelines is to help reviewers produce fair, useful and academically responsible reports.
Fair Evaluation
Assessment must be based on originality, method, evidence, ethics and contribution.
Constructive Feedback
Reviewer comments should help authors improve and help editors decide responsibly.
Integrity Protection
Reviewers help detect plagiarism, fake references, AI misuse and weak methodology.
Double-Blind, Merit-Based and Bias-Resistant Evaluation
IJACST uses a double-blind model to reduce bias, protect academic fairness and strengthen confidence in editorial decisions.
Author Identity Hidden
Reviewer evaluation should focus on content, evidence and scholarly contribution.
Reviewer Identity Hidden
Reviewer anonymity protects independence and encourages honest assessment.
Editorial Office Mediation
All communication is managed through the editorial office; direct contact is not allowed.
Conflict Declaration
Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that may affect objectivity.
Academic Expertise, Methodological Ability and Ethical Awareness
Reviewers should ideally meet one or more qualification criteria. For multidisciplinary manuscripts, IJACST may invite reviewers from more than one field to ensure balanced evaluation.
Ph.D. or Equivalent Expertise
Strong Publication Record
Academic or Research Affiliation
Interdisciplinary Subject Expertise
Methodological Competence
Ethical Publishing Awareness
Timeline Commitment
Constructive Academic Writing
Code of Conduct for Peer Reviewers
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must confirm that they have the required expertise, available time, no conflict of interest and a full commitment to confidentiality.
No Conflict of Interest
Financial, institutional, academic or personal conflicts must be disclosed before review.
Strict Confidentiality
The manuscript must not be shared, discussed, cited or reused before publication.
Timeliness
Reviewers should complete the review within the agreed timeline or notify delays early.
No Public AI Upload
Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to public AI tools or unsafe platforms.
Reviewers Must Declare Relationships That May Affect Objectivity
A conflict does not always mean automatic exclusion from review, but it must be disclosed. Reviewers should decline or inform the editor if any relationship may reasonably influence judgment.
Financial Interest
Personal Relationship
Institutional Connection
Academic Rivalry
Recent Collaboration
Supervisor/Student Link
Commercial Benefit
Direct Competition
Protecting Author Intellectual Property and Reviewer Independence
Reviewers must protect unpublished research and editorial communication. Confidentiality is essential for trust, fairness, author rights and reviewer independence.
Do Not Share Manuscript Files
Do Not Discuss Unpublished Research
Do Not Use Author Ideas Early
Do Not Upload to Public AI Tools
Do Not Contact Authors Directly
Do Not Reveal Reviewer Identity
Do Not Keep Manuscript Copies
Do Not Misuse Editorial Records
Timely Review Without Compromising Scholarly Quality
IJACST encourages timely review while maintaining rigorous scholarly assessment. Quality must never be sacrificed for speed.
Invitation Response
Reviewers should accept or decline the invitation promptly.
Standard Review
Most reviews should be completed within the standard timeline.
Fast-Track Review
Available only when editorially justified; quality remains rigorous.
Delay Notification
Reviewers should notify the editorial office if delay is unavoidable.
Six-Point Quality Framework
Reviewers should assess manuscripts using a balanced quality framework that considers originality, methodology, structure, ethics, clarity and impact.
01 Originality and Relevance
- Does the manuscript address a meaningful research gap?
- Is the novelty of the study clear?
- Does it contribute to theory, practice, policy or local/regional knowledge?
- For Indian Knowledge Systems or regional-language papers, is the contribution academically grounded?
02 Methodology and Data Integrity
- Is the research design appropriate?
- Are methods transparent and reproducible?
- Is sampling justified and analysis suitable?
- Are conclusions supported by evidence?
03 Structure and Indexing Readiness
- Is the title clear, concise and discoverable?
- Does the abstract cover objective, method, results and conclusion?
- Are keywords suitable for Google Scholar and metadata discovery?
- For non-English papers, are English title and abstract indexing-ready?
04 Ethical Compliance
- Are there plagiarism indicators or missing citations?
- Are there duplicate publication signs or fake references?
- Are data, images or tables manipulated?
- Are ethics approval, conflict disclosure and AI-use declarations present where needed?
05 Clarity and Presentation
- Is the argument logical and easy to follow?
- Are tables, figures and graphs clear and necessary?
- Is terminology consistent?
- Minor grammar errors should not be the only reason for rejection if content is strong.
06 Conclusion and Impact
- Are conclusions supported by results?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
- Are recommendations realistic?
- Is the article useful for researchers, institutions, policy or practice?
Clear Editorial Recommendations
Reviewers should submit the report with one clear recommendation. Constructive feedback is mandatory for all decisions, especially major revision and rejection.
Accept
The manuscript is original, methodologically sound, ethically compliant and requires no major changes.
Minor Revisions
Publishable after small corrections such as formatting, language clarity or missing references.
Major Revisions
Requires substantial improvement in methodology, analysis, structure, evidence or citations.
Reject
Lacks originality, has serious methodological flaws, ethical concerns or unsupported conclusions.
What Makes a Strong Peer Review Report?
A strong review should help editors reach a decision and help authors improve the manuscript. Reviewers should separate comments for authors from confidential comments for editors.
Respectful
Specific
Evidence-Based
Actionable
Balanced
Confidential
Free from Personal Criticism
Useful to Editor and Author
AI Must Not Replace Expert Review
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to public AI tools. If any tool is used for language assistance within an approved and secure environment, the reviewer remains responsible for confidentiality, accuracy and judgment.
No Public AI Upload
Unpublished manuscripts must not be uploaded to public AI platforms.
Human Expert Judgment
Final evaluation must come from the reviewer’s own expertise and ethical reasoning.
Confidentiality First
Reviewer comments and editorial records must remain protected.
Protecting the Review Process from Misconduct
Editors may investigate suspicious reviewer behavior such as fake reviewer identities, unusual email domains, rapid superficial reviews, repeated recommendations from the same networks or reviewer-author collusion.
Fake Reviewer Identity
Suspicious Email Domains
Rapid Superficial Reviews
Reviewer-Author Collusion
Repeated Network Recommendations
Manipulated Reviewer Suggestions
Peer Reviewers Are Guardians of Academic Credibility
IJACST values reviewers who combine subject expertise, ethical judgment, confidentiality, fairness and constructive academic guidance. A reviewer’s role is not only to judge manuscripts but to improve scholarly quality and protect the integrity of published research.