PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All submissions to ASEP undergo a high and consistent peer-review process to ensure the quality and validity of the published manuscripts. The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that the authors and the reviewers are anonymous. The review process is carried out by at least 2 experts, reviewers, in the relevant fields of study for each submission. Reviewers evaluate the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, quality and relevance to the journal's scope.

ASEP’s Reviewing process

Step 1. Initial evaluation: Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board member will conduct an initial evaluation to ensure that the manuscript meets the scope and focus of the journal. The editor screening criteria will include the plagiarism content (less than 20% similarity), copyright issue, ethic, quality in scientific value, and conflict of interest. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be rejected without further review. The editorial office will check the article formatting and citation styles and adhere to the specified author guidelines. If the required conditions are unmet, the manuscript will be returned to the author for reformatting and resubmission. If the manuscript passes approval, it will be sent to at least 2 reviewers.

Step 2. Assignment of reviewers: The editorial board member will select at least 2  independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study. ASEP conducts the double-blind peer review process, so personal identities of reviewer and author are undisclosed. The assigned editor will then send invitations to reviewers who have different affiliations of the corresponding authors within two weeks. After reviewer received invitation, reviewer will consider to accept invitation according to their scientific expertise, any potential conflicts of interest, and schedule availability.

Step 3. Review process: The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific quality, repeatability, originality, validity, impact and relevance to the field of study. The reviewers are usually given two weeks in average to review the research work. They are requested to provide constructive feedback to the authors to help improve the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript.

Step 4. Decision: After at least 2 reviewer’s feedbacks are submitted to the journal office, the assigned editor will make the decision on whether to accept, reject, or request a revision of the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers. If the comments of each reviewer differ significantly, the assigned editor may invite an additional reviewer to review the manuscript before making the final decision. Then, the assigned editor will send a decision (with rejection, acceptance, or the need for major or minor revisions) to the author via the online system, along with reviewer and editor comments. The average time from submission to the first decision will be less than one month.

Step 5. Revision process: If the manuscript is needed for revision, the authors will be asked to revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and resubmit it for further review. Re-submitted materials include the revised manuscript with highlighted changes and a response to reviewer and editor. The author is usually given two weeks in average to revise the manuscript. The revised materials will be sent to reviewers again to provide decision (with rejection, acceptance, or the need for major or minor revisions).

Step 6. Publication: Once the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the authors will be asked to submit a final version of the manuscript, which will be copyedited and formatted for publication in the journal.

Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review Process

ASEP is committed to maintain the highest standards of publication ethics and preventing publication malpractice in its peer review process. We ensure unbias, transparency, confidential and ethical conduct in evaluating manuscripts to obtain the quality and trustworthiness of the published manuscript in ASEP.

We strictly adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Confidentiality: The peer review process is confidential, and all information related to submitted manuscripts is handled with strict confidentiality as double blind review manner. Editors, reviewers, and any other involved parties must maintain confidentiality and not disclose any details about the manuscript.

2. Objectivity and unbias: Editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, publishing ethic, relevance, and quality, without any personal bias or conflict of interest. They should provide constructive feedback to authors to improve the quality of their work. Editors should make fair and well-informed decisions based on the reviewers' comments and their own expertise. ASEP acknowledges the important contribution and dedication of peer reviewers. The journal will provide appropriate recognition and certificate to reviewers for their valuable contributions to the publication process.

3. Timeliness: ASEP is committed to timely peer review. Editors and reviewers are expected to complete their review process within a reasonable and committed timeframe to ensure not to delayed publication. Authors will be promptly informed about the status and progress of their manuscripts during the review process.

4. Transparency: The peer review process will be recorded in ASEP reviewing platform/website. All submitted manuscript and supportive materials are deposited as records, as well as, reviewer’s feedback and editor decision are recorded and trackable in the reviewing platform/website to ensure the transparency.  

5. Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality and objectivity in the review process. If a conflict of interest arises, appropriate actions will be taken to ensure unbiased evaluation.

6. Plagiarism and Misconduct: Editors and reviewers should be cautious in identifying any potential cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, or any research misconduct. Any suspected misconduct should be reported promptly to the responsible stakeholders. The actions to response to the found and proved plagiarism and misconduct include rejection (during reviewing process) and retraction (after acceptance to publication).