Transactions on Aerospace Research

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and objectivity of the peer-review process. They are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use information obtained during the review process for personal advantage or the benefit of others.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope, while respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviews should be objective, constructive, and supported by clear, complete, and well-reasoned explanations, particularly when recommending major revisions or rejection.

Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments whenever such conflicts could affect their impartiality. They should promptly notify the editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and other published or submitted works of which they are aware.

Role and Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are experts in the field relevant to the submitted manuscript and are selected by the Subject Editor based on their scientific expertise, publication record, and academic qualifications, including a minimum requirement of a doctoral degree (PhD or equivalent).

To ensure independence and objectivity, reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and should have no conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. Whenever possible, the journal seeks to involve reviewers from institutions located in at least two different countries.

Review Process

The journal applies a double-blind peer review model in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Upon receiving an invitation to review, reviewers are asked to assess whether they possess the necessary expertise and whether they can complete the review within the requested timeframe. Reviews are normally expected within 30 calendar days. If a reviewer anticipates a delay, the Editorial Office should be informed as soon as possible.

Reviewers are invited through the Editorial System, which automatically generates and sends an email invitation containing links to the manuscript and the review form. In exceptional circumstances, review materials may be provided directly by the Editorial Secretary.

Review Form and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using a standardized review form. The assessment includes, among other aspects:

• originality and scientific value of the work;
• validity and appropriateness of the methodology;
• contribution to the current state of knowledge;
• quality, relevance, and reliability of references and citations;
• clarity, coherence, and independence of the argumentation;
• correctness of terminology;
• overall comprehensibility and editorial quality of the manuscript;
• identification of potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data falsification, citation manipulation, or unreliable references.

Review Outcomes

Each reviewer is requested to select one of the following recommendations:

1.       Accept as written with no revisions required;

2.       Accept with minor revisions and no second review necessary;

3.       Accept with minor revisions and a second review required;

4.       Require major revisions and allow resubmission for further review;

5.       Reject the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide detailed comments supporting their recommendation and, where appropriate, specific suggestions for improvement.

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are bound by strict confidentiality obligations. Manuscripts received for review must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to third parties without the explicit permission of the editor, except where specialist advice is required and approved by the Editorial Office.

Reviewers are expected to report any suspected ethical misconduct, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, fabricated references, data falsification, or any other breach of research integrity.

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. In cases involving suspected ethical misconduct, the Editorial Board may consult relevant COPE guidelines, flowcharts, and case studies when evaluating and resolving ethical concerns.