IJAERD applies a double-blind peer review model for all submissions — both reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the review process. For editorial submissions (manuscripts from editorial team members or active reviewers), an additional layer of protocol applies:
Double-blind peer review — both reviewer and author identities are concealed. Each manuscript receives a minimum of two external reviews. A third is sought where the first two diverge materially.
Manuscripts from editorial team members or active reviewers — handled by an independent editor, with the author-editor fully recused. See the Editorial Submissions Policy.
The journal's full process is described on the Peer Review Policy page.
A useful review addresses, at minimum, the following dimensions of the manuscript:
Reviewers conclude their report with one of the following recommendations. The handling editor makes the final decision, weighing all reviews and the manuscript's overall suitability.
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript where they have a competing interest with the authors, including but not limited to:
Where a conflict is identified, decline the invitation and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer. Where a conflict is identified after a review has commenced, notify the handling editor immediately. Full details on the Conflicts of Interest page.
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must:
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts under review — in whole or in part — to public or third-party generative AI tools, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or comparable services. Such uploads constitute a breach of confidentiality and may expose the manuscript to unknown retention or model training.
The substantive content of a peer-review report — the assessment of originality, methodology, results, and contribution — must be the reviewer's own intellectual work. AI-generated reviews are not acceptable.
Full details, including permitted limited uses and disclosure requirements, are on the AI Use Policy for Reviewers page.
Reviewers are asked to complete reviews within 2–3 working days of accepting an invitation (IJAERD's rapid review commitment). Where more time is needed, inform the handling editor as early as possible so that the timeline can be adjusted or alternative arrangements made.
Reviews are most useful when they are specific, evidence-based, and constructive. Reviewers should focus on the work, not the author, and phrase critique in a way that helps the author improve the manuscript. Reviews that are dismissive, derogatory, or that target the author's identity are not acceptable and may be rejected by the handling editor.
- Specific, citing sections and line numbers
- Evidence-based criticism
- Constructive suggestions for improvement
- Respectful and professional tone
- Addresses all evaluation criteria
- Vague or unsupported rejection
- Dismissive or derogatory language
- Personal attacks on the author
- Biased or discriminatory remarks
- Unexplained requests for self-citation
On completion of each review, the journal's editorial system sends the reviewer an automated acknowledgement email recording the manuscript identifier and the date of review completion. Reviewers may use this email as evidence of their service for institutional or professional recognition purposes.
Reviewers may also self-record their reviews on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition (formerly Publons). The journal can confirm a completed review in writing on request. Full details are on the Reviewer Recognition page.
