Peer Review Policy

Journal of Intelligent Aeronautical Systems and Sustainable Flight Technologies is committed to a rigorous, fair, transparent, and constructive peer-review process designed to maintain the quality, originality, and integrity of its published research. Peer review provides an independent assessment of submitted manuscripts and assists editors in making informed publication decisions while helping authors improve the clarity, methodological quality, and scholarly contribution of their work. All manuscripts considered for publication are subject to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, external peer review.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the Journal’s aims and scope and meets the basic requirements for scholarly quality, originality, presentation, and ethical compliance. The editors may decline manuscripts at this stage if they are outside the Journal’s scope, lack sufficient scholarly merit, contain substantial originality concerns, have serious methodological weaknesses, or do not meet essential submission or ethical requirements. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally sent for independent peer review.

Peer Review Model

The Journal normally uses a double-anonymous peer-review process, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another. Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject expertise, methodological knowledge, research experience, and independence from the authors. Normally, manuscripts are evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers, although the number may vary according to the nature and complexity of the submission. The Journal may use additional reviewers where specialist expertise is required or where reviewer assessments substantially differ.

Selection and Independence of Reviewers

Editors seek reviewers who have appropriate expertise and no relationship or interest that could compromise the impartiality of their assessment. Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. Individuals who have recently collaborated with the authors, belong to the same institution, have a personal or professional relationship that could affect impartiality, or have another relevant competing interest should decline the review. The Journal may also consider reasonable reviewer exclusion requests made by authors, provided that such requests are supported by legitimate concerns and do not improperly restrict the review process.

Review and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers assess manuscripts for originality, significance, methodological rigor, validity of analysis, clarity of presentation, appropriate use of relevant literature, interpretation of findings, ethical compliance, and overall contribution to the field. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final outcome independently. The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor considers the reviewers’ reports together with the manuscript, the Journal’s standards, and other relevant editorial considerations before reaching a decision.

Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments carefully and provide a clear explanation of changes made or reasons for not adopting particular recommendations. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when further expert assessment is considered necessary.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, copy, distribute, use, or discuss unpublished manuscript content with others without authorization from the Journal. Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, professional, or research advantage. Editors and reviewers are expected to protect the confidentiality of the submission throughout the review and editorial process.

Reviewer Conduct and Ethical Standards

Reviews should be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful. Reviewers should focus on the quality and content of the manuscript rather than on the authors personally. They should identify significant methodological, interpretive, ethical, or reporting concerns and should distinguish essential revisions from suggestions that are primarily editorial or stylistic. Reviewers should not recommend citations solely to increase their own citation counts or the visibility of particular individuals, journals, or publications.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and should not upload unpublished manuscript content, figures, tables, data, or other confidential material into public or unauthorized generative AI systems. AI tools must not replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly judgment. Where the Journal permits limited use of AI-assisted tools, reviewers remain fully responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their review. AI systems cannot be credited as reviewers.

Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or serious misunderstanding of the manuscript affected the decision. Appeals should provide clear and substantive grounds rather than simply disagreeing with reviewer opinions. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor, and the Journal may seek additional independent advice where necessary. Editorial decisions following reconsideration are normally final.

Ethical Concerns and Post-Publication Issues

The Journal may investigate concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, ethical approval, inappropriate image manipulation, or other forms of research or publication misconduct identified during peer review or after publication. Appropriate action may include requesting clarification or documentation, additional review, correction, expression of concern, rejection, or retraction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue. Investigations are conducted confidentially and in accordance with the Journal’s publication ethics procedures.

Timeliness and Quality Assurance

Journal of Intelligent Aeronautical Systems and Sustainable Flight Technologies seeks to complete peer review within a reasonable period while prioritizing the quality and independence of the assessment over speed. Reviewers are expected to accept assignments only when they have sufficient expertise and availability to complete them within the requested timeframe. The Journal may invite alternative reviewers when an invited reviewer declines, becomes unavailable, or does not provide an assessment within the agreed period. Reviewer performance may be monitored to support consistency, timeliness, and the overall quality of the peer-review process.