Peer Review Policy

Afghan International Journal of Science (AIJS)

Peer Review Policy

The Afghan International Journal of Science (AIJS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly excellence. As an open-access journal, we adhere to rigorous peer-review processes to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of published research.

JSNR employs a double-blind peer-review process, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. This approach minimizes bias and ensures an objective evaluation of the manuscript. AIJS observes the following when evaluating a submitted manuscript:

Peer-Review Process

 

Initial Screening

  • All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Board to assess their suitability for the journal.
  • Manuscripts are checked for adherence to submission guidelines, scope, and ethical standards.
  • Plagiarism screening is conducted using Turnitin to ensure originality.

Assignment of Reviewers

  • The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors assign at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Conflict of Interest Management

AIJS requires all authors, reviewers, and editors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest—financial, institutional, or personal—that could influence the review or publication process.

  • Authors must include a conflict-of-interest statement upon submission.
  • Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts where a conflict exists.
  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict.

Disclosures are confidential and used to ensure transparency and fairness in editorial decisions.

Review Process

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • Originality and significance of the research.
    • Methodological rigor and validity of results.
    • Clarity and coherence of presentation.
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope and audience.
    • Ethical compliance.
  • Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations, which may include:
    • Accept without changes.
    • Accept with major revisions.
    • Accept with minor revisions.
    • Revise and resubmit.
    • Reject.

Decision-Making

  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s overall quality.
  • Authors are notified of the decision along with reviewers’ comments and suggestions for improvement.

Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors are given a specified timeframe to revise their manuscript based on reviewers’ feedback.
  • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the original reviewers and/or the Editorial Board to ensure all concerns have been addressed.

Final Acceptance

  • Once the manuscript meets all requirements, it is formally accepted for publication.
  • The accepted manuscript undergoes copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading before publication.