Peer Review / Refereeing


Peer review is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries.

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.

Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from options provided by the journal. Most recommendations are along the lines of the following

v  to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal 

v  to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways

v  to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission 

v  to reject it outright.


EJAET follows a strict blind peer-review programme, wherein the reviewers are not aware of the identities of the authors of the manuscript which are being reviewed by them. This policy is a recent amendment to the existing set of guidelines so as to prevent any sort of favoritism. The EJAET reviewers are selected after thorough screening process. EJAET has a process of inviting applications from prospective reviewers. However, the publisher also individually contacts and invites competent individuals to join the esteemed board of EJAET reviewers (Join as a Reviewver).

The deadline to complete the review process is three or four weeks. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

v  Accept

v  Consider after Minor Changes

v  Consider after Major Changes

v  Reject


When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

v  Publish

v  Consider after Minor Changes

v  Consider after Major Changes

v  Reject


If the Editor recommends “Publish” the manuscript is accepted for publication.

If the Editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Only the Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.

If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be “Publish” or “Consider after Minor Changes” or “Reject.”

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.


The Editors have the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results.