Guidelines for Reviewers

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The Journal of Advanced Thermal and Fluid Systems in Aerospace relies on independent expert reviewers to evaluate the quality, originality, reliability, and significance of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers contribute to maintaining scholarly standards by identifying strengths, weaknesses, methodological concerns, ethical issues, and opportunities for improvement. Their assessments assist the editors in reaching informed publication decisions and help authors improve the clarity and scientific value of their work.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based assessments and to treat all authors fairly, regardless of their institutional affiliation, geographical location, seniority, or other personal characteristics.

2. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript falls within their expertise, whether sufficient time is available to complete the review, and whether any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists. A review should be declined if the subject is outside the reviewer’s competence, a conflict could compromise impartiality, or the review cannot be completed within the required timeframe.

If only part of the manuscript falls within the reviewer’s expertise, this limitation should be communicated to the editor. Reviewers should not arrange for another person to undertake the review without the editor’s prior authorization.

3. Confidentiality and Double-Blind Review

The Journal operates a double-blind peer-review system. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, supporting files, editorial correspondence, and all information obtained during the review. Manuscripts must not be shared with colleagues, students, or other third parties without prior editorial permission.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors or disclose their own identities through the review process. Manuscript content must not be used for personal research, competitive advantage, or any purpose unrelated to the evaluation. Confidential material should not be entered into public or third-party artificial intelligence systems that could retain, disclose, or use the information without authorization. Any use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the Journal’s applicable policy and must not replace the reviewer’s independent expert judgment.

4. General Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript in light of its objectives, article type, and disciplinary context. The following considerations are generally relevant:

Originality and significance: Does the manuscript offer a meaningful contribution, new evidence, useful synthesis, or substantive advancement in the field?
Scope and relevance: Is the work appropriate for the Journal and relevant to its readership?
Literature review: Does it engage adequately with relevant and current scholarship, including important contrasting evidence?
Research objectives: Are the research questions, hypotheses, or aims clearly stated and appropriately addressed?
Methodology: Are the research design, sampling, procedures, measurements, materials, and analytical methods suitable and sufficiently described?
Statistical and analytical quality: Are the statistical tests, models, assumptions, uncertainty estimates, and interpretations appropriate to the data and research questions?
Results and interpretation: Are the findings presented clearly and interpreted consistently with the evidence?
Discussion and conclusions: Do the conclusions follow from the results, acknowledge limitations, and avoid unsupported generalizations or causal claims?
Ethics and transparency: Are relevant ethical approvals, consent procedures, trial registrations, data availability statements, funding declarations, and conflicts of interest appropriately reported where applicable?
Presentation and references: Is the manuscript logically organized, clearly written, adequately illustrated, and accurately referenced?

Not every criterion applies equally to every manuscript. Reviews, conceptual papers, qualitative studies, case studies, and theoretical contributions should be assessed using standards appropriate to their respective methods and purposes.

5. Assessment of Methodology and Results

Reviewers should determine whether the research methods are sufficiently rigorous, transparent, and reproducible to support the reported findings. Where relevant, attention should be given to sample selection, sample size justification, measurement validity, potential bias, control groups, model assumptions, analytical procedures, and the appropriateness of comparisons.

For quantitative studies, statistical conclusions should be proportionate to the data and methods. For qualitative studies, reviewers should consider the suitability of the approach, transparency of data collection and analysis, and support for interpretations. For reviews and conceptual articles, the adequacy of source selection, synthesis, theoretical reasoning, and contribution to existing knowledge should be considered.

Reviewers should identify limitations that materially affect the interpretation or reliability of the findings and distinguish essential methodological corrections from optional improvements.

6. Research Ethics and Potential Misconduct

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript raises concerns regarding plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image alteration, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research involving human participants, or other potential breaches of research integrity.

Suspected misconduct should be reported confidentially to the handling editor with specific details or supporting evidence. Reviewers should not independently investigate, contact the authors about suspected misconduct, or make public allegations. Final assessment and any necessary investigation remain the responsibility of the Journal.

Reviewers should also assess whether limitations, funding sources, relevant conflicts of interest, and other disclosures appear adequate. Any concerns should be communicated objectively and discreetly.

7. Constructive Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should be professional, specific, respectful, and directed toward the scholarly work rather than the authors. Major concerns should explain why an issue affects the validity, originality, interpretation, or presentation of the manuscript. Where possible, recommendations should identify practical ways to address the problem.

Comments should distinguish essential revisions from suggestions that may improve clarity or completeness. Reviewers should avoid hostile language, personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, unsupported accusations, and requests for unnecessary citations to their own work or that of close colleagues. Citation recommendations should be relevant, justified, and proportionate.

8. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor concerning matters that should not be communicated directly to the authors, including potential conflicts of interest, suspected ethical concerns, significant doubts about the reliability of the work, or contextual information relevant to the editorial decision.

Confidential comments should remain professional, factual, and consistent with the overall assessment. Substantive scientific criticisms intended to guide revision should normally also be included in the comments to the authors, so that authors have a fair opportunity to respond.

9. Recommendation to the Editor

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should provide a recommendation supported by their assessment. The available options generally include:

Accept: The manuscript meets the Journal’s standards and requires no substantive revision.
Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are needed.
Major Revision: Significant changes are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript has substantial deficiencies, lacks sufficient originality or relevance, or does not meet the Journal’s publication standards.

The recommendation should reflect the scientific assessment rather than personal preference. Reviewers should explain the principal reasons for their recommendation and identify any issues that are essential to resolving before publication. The final decision remains with the editor, who considers all reviews and the Journal’s requirements.

10. Review Deadlines and Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers should submit their reports within the deadline specified in the invitation. If additional time is required, the handling editor should be informed promptly. If a review cannot be completed, the reviewer should notify the editorial office as early as possible.

For revised manuscripts, reviewers should focus on whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous comments and resolved the principal concerns. Reviewers should acknowledge satisfactory changes and avoid introducing new demands that are unrelated to the original concerns, unless new issues have become apparent or further changes are scientifically necessary.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any circumstances that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. These may include recent collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, supervisory or personal relationships, direct academic competition, financial interests, or involvement in the research under consideration.

If a conflict is identified after accepting the invitation or during the review, the reviewer should inform the editor immediately. The editor will determine whether the review may continue or whether an alternative reviewer is required.

12. Reviewer Recognition and Professional Conduct

The Journal values the time and expertise contributed by its reviewers. Reviewers are expected to maintain professional conduct, meet agreed commitments, and provide assessments that support fair editorial decisions and constructive scholarly development. Any recognition of reviewers will be managed in accordance with the Journal’s policies and applicable confidentiality requirements.

13. Final Responsibility

Reviewers provide expert advice but do not make the final publication decision. Editorial decisions are the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor. By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to uphold the Journal’s confidentiality requirements, ethical standards, and commitment to rigorous, fair, and constructive peer review.