Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the review process. They are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and refrain from using information obtained during the review for personal gain. Reviewers must objectively judge the quality of a manuscript on its own merit, respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Reviewers should avoid conflicts of interest, disclose any potential bias, and treat the manuscript as a confidential document, not to be shown or discussed with others except for specific advice. Reviewers must provide clear, complete, and cogent explanations for their judgments, especially for negative feedback, and notify the editor of any substantial similarity with other works.
Role and Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are specialists in the field related to the publication and are selected by the Subject Editor based on their academic credentials, including a minimum requirement of holding a PhD degree. The selection process ensures that reviewers possess the expertise necessary to provide a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.
Review Process
Upon receiving a manuscript, which is anonymized to maintain the integrity of the review process, reviewers assess their ability to undertake the review both in terms of content expertise and within the proposed deadline. The Editorial Board typically sets a review period of no longer than 30 calendar days. Reviewers are expected to adhere to this timeline; however, if a delay is anticipated, they are required to inform the Editorial Board promptly.
Review Form and Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are provided with a standardized review form by the Editorial Secretary. This form is designed to guide the reviewer in producing a detailed written opinion of the manuscript. When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers consider various aspects, including the validity and originality of the work, the appropriateness of the methodology used, and the contribution of the publication to the current state of research. The review also entails a critical assessment of the bibliography, independence of the argument presented, and the identification of any scientific dishonesty, such as plagiarism. Additionally, reviewers are responsible for evaluating the correct use of specialized terminology and the overall comprehensibility of the text.
Review Outcomes
The review should culminate in a clear conclusion regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Reviewers must indicate on the review form one of the following recommendations:
- Accept as written with no need for any revisions
- Accept with minor revisions with no second review necessary
- Accept with minor revisions and continue with a second review
- Require major revisions and allow text to reviewed again if resubmitted
- Do not accept for publication
Each Reviewer also provides detailed grounds for this decision, specifically indicating what revisions the Reviewer feels are necessary before the manuscript can be published.
In the event that Reviewers discover a violation of ethical standards (including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or any other violation) they should inform the Editors promptly thereof.
Reviewers are bound to maintain the confidentiality of the content of the reviewed article and their evaluation of it. They must not disclose any aspect of the manuscript or consult with others, including fellow reviewers, about the manuscript. This confidentiality is crucial to preserving the integrity of the peer-review process and the unpublished work of the authors.
By complying with these guidelines, Reviewers uphold the high standards of Transactions on Aerospace Research, contributing to the journal’s mission of disseminating high-quality and impactful research in the field of aerospace.