Editorial process
Peer review at AJESI
Initial AI-assisted quality checks and editorial screening, followed by double-blind expert peer review — with humans always in the loop. Average time to first decision: 2 weeks.
1. Initial quality checks and editorial screening
Every submission first passes through automated, AI-assisted quality checks that produce a preliminary structured assessment — scope fit, structural completeness, language quality, and ethics and integrity flags. This is a quality-control aid only; it never makes any decision. A human Section Editor then conducts the editorial screening, considering — but never bound by — the assessment, and is the sole authority for any desk-decision. AI is not involved in peer review.
2. Peer review
Suitable submissions are sent to at least two independent peer reviewers under a double-blind protocol. Reviewers receive a structured review form to guide their assessment. Final reviews are entirely the reviewer's own work.
3. Editorial decision
The Section Editor weighs all reviews and recommends one of: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject. Authors receive the editor's decision along with anonymized reviewer comments.
4. Revisions and acceptance
Authors submit revised manuscripts with a response to reviewers. The editor may send revisions back to the original reviewers or make a final decision.
5. Production and publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and production. An AI formatter produces a first-pass HTML galley conforming to the journal style; a Production Editor reviews and finalizes before publication. Authors approve proofs prior to release.
A note on AI assistance
AI assistance supports initial quality checks and editorial screening only — it never performs or replaces peer review. AI outputs are clearly labeled, fully auditable, and reviewed by editors before any action. No editorial decision — including desk-rejection — is ever taken automatically, and every peer review is the independent work of human experts.