Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Frontier Advances in Applied Science and Engineering (FAASE) implements a double-blind peer review model. Reviewer identities are concealed from authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers throughout all review rounds. Editorial staff maintain and enforce this separation at every stage.

Scope Alignment

Manuscripts must fit the applied science and engineering scope described on the journal’s Focus & Scope page. Authors shall verify fit prior to submission: Focus & Scope.

Non-Ambiguity Policy

  • All timelines below are stated as firm service levels (SLAs) in calendar days.
  • Roles, responsibilities, and decisions use mandatory language: must, shall, will.
  • The journal does not operate open or single-blind review. Only double-blind review is in force.
  • Any policy change will be announced on the journal homepage: FAASE Home.

End-to-End Workflow

  1. Submission — Authors submit via the journal system with a blinded manuscript file and a separate title page that contains all author details. Author names, affiliations, self-identifying citations, and acknowledgements must not appear in the blinded file.
  2. Administrative & Technical Screening (≤ 7 days) — Managing Editor verifies completeness, formatting, scope fit, and double-blind compliance. Non-compliant submissions are returned to authors for correction.
  3. Similarity & Integrity Checks (≤ 7 days; in parallel) — The editorial office runs plagiarism detection, image/manipulation screening, reference integrity checks, and basic ethical compliance checks.
  4. Editor Assignment (≤ 3 days) — Editor-in-Chief assigns an Associate/Section Editor (AE) based on subject area.
  5. Reviewer Selection & Invitation (≤ 7 days) — The AE invites two (2) independent experts (a third reviewer is invited if needed for tie-break or specialized expertise). All invitees must be free of conflicts of interest.
  6. Review Round 1 (21 days for reviews) — Each reviewer submits a structured report and a recommendation. The AE synthesizes the reports and prepares a decision note.
  7. Editorial Decision (≤ 7 days after last review is received) — One of four outcomes is issued: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  8. Author Revision — Authors submit a revised manuscript plus a point-by-point response:
    • Minor Revision: ≤ 14 days
    • Major Revision: ≤ 28 days
    Extensions require an explicit written request before the deadline.
  9. Subsequent Rounds (if required) — The AE may re-send to the same or additional reviewers. Each additional review round follows the same 21-day reviewer SLA and 7-day editorial decision SLA.
  10. Acceptance & Production — Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, author proofing (≤ 5 days to return proofs), and online publication.

Roles & Responsibilities

Role Primary Responsibilities
Editor-in-Chief (EiC) Sets editorial policy; assigns AEs; issues final decisions when required; ensures policy compliance and integrity.
Associate/Section Editor (AE) Assesses scope; selects and manages reviewers; synthesizes reviews; proposes decisions; verifies revisions.
Managing Editor Runs administrative screening; ensures double-blind compliance; manages timelines; coordinates production.
Reviewers Provide objective, evidence-based, double-blind reviews using the journal’s rubric; disclose conflicts; keep all materials confidential.
Authors Submit blinded files; follow ethical standards; respond point-by-point to reviews; supply data/code upon request; meet deadlines.

Evaluation Criteria (Mandatory Rubric)

  • Originality & Contribution — Advances the state of applied science/engineering; clearly stated research gap and significance.
  • Methodological Rigor — Sound design (experimental/simulation/analytical); appropriate statistics; uncertainty/error analysis.
  • Reproducibility & Transparency — Sufficient detail to replicate; data/code availability or justified restrictions.
  • Results & Interpretation — Findings are valid, consistent with data, and supported by appropriate analyses.
  • Practical Relevance — Potential impact for practice/industry/policy; technology-readiness or application pathway where relevant.
  • Presentation Quality — Structure, figures/tables, clarity, and adherence to author guidelines.
  • Ethics & Compliance — Proper approvals (human/animal), conflict disclosures, and research integrity.

Decisions & Required Actions

  • Accept — Proceed to production without additional scientific changes.
  • Minor Revision — Limited changes; authors return within ≤ 14 days.
  • Major Revision — Substantive changes; authors return within ≤ 28 days; may trigger re-review.
  • Reject — Manuscript does not meet journal standards or scope; no resubmission under the same manuscript ID.

Double-Blind Enforcement

  • Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file, metadata, and supplementary materials.
  • Citations to prior work by the authors must be written in the third person without self-identifying language.
  • Editors anonymize any residual identifiers before sending files to reviewers.
  • All communications routed through the journal system preserve anonymity.

Confidentiality & Conflicts of Interest

  • All submitted materials are confidential and used solely for peer review.
  • Reviewers and editors must decline assignments with financial, personal, or academic conflicts.
  • Misuse of manuscript content or ideas is prohibited.

Research Integrity & Compliance Checks

  • Similarity screening is mandatory for every submission and revision.
  • Image and data integrity checks may be performed at any stage.
  • Editors may request raw data, code, laboratory logs, or ethics approvals for verification.
  • Suspected misconduct triggers a formal inquiry under established publication-ethics procedures.

Timelines (SLAs)

Stage Service Level (Calendar Days)
Administrative/Technical Screening ≤ 7
Editor Assignment ≤ 3
Reviewer Invitation Window ≤ 7
Review Round (per reviewer) 21
Editorial Decision After Reviews Received ≤ 7
Author Revision — Minor ≤ 14
Author Revision — Major ≤ 28
Author Proof Corrections ≤ 5

Appeals and Complaints

  • Appeal Window: Authors may submit a written appeal within 14 days of the decision date.
  • Appeal Content: A concise, evidence-based explanation referencing specific reviewer/editor points and corresponding scientific grounds.
  • Handling: The EiC assigns an independent editor (not involved in the original decision) to evaluate the appeal and, if necessary, seek an additional external opinion. The outcome is communicated in writing and is final.
  • Process/Ethics Complaints: Submit via the contact channel on the journal website. Complaints are logged and acknowledged within 7 days.

Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers receive formal acknowledgement letters upon request. Identities remain confidential under the double-blind model; the journal will not disclose reviewer names for specific manuscripts.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many reviewers are assigned?
Two reviewers are assigned for each manuscript. A third may be added to resolve conflicting recommendations or provide specialized expertise.
May authors suggest or exclude reviewers?
Yes. Suggestions and exclusions must be justified at submission. The editorial team decides the final selections.
How should authors prepare the revision?
Upload a clean revised manuscript and a separate point-by-point response mapping every reviewer comment to specific changes with page and line references.
Will the journal reveal identities?
No. The double-blind model is enforced for all review rounds. Communications occur only through the journal system.
What happens if deadlines are missed?
Assignments or submissions that exceed SLAs without an approved extension will be reassessed and may be withdrawn or re-routed to maintain timeliness.

This policy is effective immediately and applies to all new submissions and active manuscripts under review.