Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose and Principles

The Journal of Advanced Thermal and Fluid Systems in Aerospace follows a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The process is designed to ensure that publication decisions are based on scholarly merit and that all submissions receive fair, independent, confidential, and impartial consideration.

The Journal is committed to maintaining rigorous editorial standards, protecting the confidentiality of manuscripts, managing conflicts of interest, and ensuring that reviewers’ assessments contribute constructively to improving the quality of published research.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the Journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission requirements, originality, completeness, and basic ethical standards. Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical corrections or rejected without external review if they fall outside the Journal’s scope, fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, present substantial methodological deficiencies, or raise unresolved ethical concerns.

Submissions that pass the initial assessment are forwarded for external peer review.

3. Double-Blind Review Process

The Journal uses a double-blind review model in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process, to the extent reasonably possible. Authors must submit a separate title page containing identifying information and ensure that the main manuscript, supplementary files, acknowledgements, and other review materials do not unnecessarily disclose their identities.

Reviewers are instructed not to attempt to identify the authors and to maintain the confidentiality of all materials received. Although the Journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when manuscripts refer to identifiable research projects, publicly available preprints, or distinctive datasets.

4. Selection and Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor selects reviewers based on their relevant knowledge, research experience, publication record, impartiality, and ability to provide a timely assessment.

Reviewers should have no significant personal, professional, financial, or academic conflicts of interest that could compromise their judgment. The editorial team may seek additional reviews where the initial reports are conflicting, insufficiently detailed, or inconclusive.

5. Author Suggestions and Exclusion of Reviewers

At submission, authors may recommend qualified potential reviewers who possess relevant expertise and can provide an independent assessment of the manuscript. Suggested reviewers should have appropriate academic or professional credentials and a verifiable institutional or professional affiliation. Authors should provide the reviewers’ names, institutional affiliations, professional email addresses, and relevant areas of expertise, where requested.

Authors may also request the exclusion of specific individuals from reviewing their manuscript. Such requests must include a clear, reasonable justification, such as a documented conflict of interest, a significant professional dispute, or another circumstance that could reasonably compromise impartiality. Requests should be made at submission or as early as possible during the editorial process.

The Journal independently evaluates all suggestions and exclusion requests. Authors’ recommendations are advisory only and do not guarantee that suggested individuals will be invited or that nominated individuals will be excluded. The Journal retains full authority to select appropriate reviewers and may decline requests that lack sufficient justification or are inconsistent with the need for a fair and independent review. Suggested reviewers must not have close recent collaborations, shared institutional appointments, direct supervisory relationships, or other relationships that could undermine impartiality.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to the article type and subject area. These generally include originality and significance, relevance to the Journal’s scope, adequacy of the literature review, clarity of the research objectives, soundness of the methodology, appropriateness of statistical or analytical procedures, validity of the findings, balance of the discussion, support for conclusions, ethical compliance, quality of presentation, and adequacy of references.

Reviewers should distinguish major concerns affecting the validity or contribution of the work from minor issues involving presentation, terminology, or formatting. Assessments should be evidence-based, constructive, and sufficiently detailed to guide both the editor and the authors.

7. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes, subject to any final editorial requirements.
Minor Revision: Limited amendments are required before a final decision can be made.
Major Revision: Substantial changes, additional analysis, clarification, or methodological improvements are required, followed by further editorial assessment and, where appropriate, another round of peer review.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the Journal’s publication requirements or has deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor. Where reviews conflict, the editor may seek additional expert advice or make a reasoned decision based on the available evidence.

8. Revisions and Author Responses

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should submit a revised version within the specified period, together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a suggestion has not been adopted, authors should provide a clear and scientifically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the extent and nature of the changes. A revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance. If an extension is required, authors should contact the editorial office before the deadline.

9. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be disclosed, distributed, or used for personal, professional, or research advantage. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable manuscript content to external artificial intelligence tools or other services that may compromise confidentiality, unless explicitly authorized by the Journal and permitted under its applicable policies.

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from the process when impartiality cannot reasonably be maintained. Any concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts, or other potential misconduct should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

10. Timeliness and Monitoring

The Journal seeks to complete peer review within a reasonable period while allowing sufficient time for careful and rigorous assessment. Reviewers are expected to accept assignments only when they can meet the agreed deadline and to notify the editor promptly if delays arise. The editorial team monitors review progress and may invite alternative reviewers when necessary to prevent undue delays.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or failure to consider relevant evidence may submit a reasoned written appeal to appeals_and_complaints@insightharbour.com. Appeals must identify specific grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information. They will be assessed independently by an editor not directly responsible for the original decision, where practicable.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, conflicts of interest, or publication ethics will be handled confidentially, impartially, and in a timely manner. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision or an additional round of peer review.

12. Final Editorial Authority

The Journal retains responsibility for ensuring that publication decisions are fair, consistent, and based on scholarly merit. Neither an individual reviewer’s recommendation nor an author’s suggested or excluded reviewer determines the outcome independently. All final decisions are made in accordance with the Journal’s editorial policies, publication ethics standards, and commitment to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.