Reviewers

Reviewer guidelines

Make sure the article you have been asked to review truly matches your expertise
The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.

Avoid a potential conflict of interest

A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the article. These should all be listed when responding to the editor's invitation for review.

Check that you have enough time
Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to review can vary greatly between disciplines and of course on article type, but on average, an article will take about 5 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review?

Understand what it means to accept to review and manage deadlines

Deadlines for reviews vary per journal. The editors will provide information on deadline expectations with the review request. Let them know within a day or two that you got the request. They will appreciate being informed in a timely manner if you are able to complete the review or not. There are no consequences for refusing to review a paper.

If you feel the review will take you longer to complete than normal, please contact the editor to discuss the matter. The editor may ask you to recommend an alternate reviewer, or may be willing to wait a little longer (e.g., if the paper is highly specialized and reviewers are difficult to find). As a general guideline, if you know you will not be able to complete a review within the time frame requested, you should decline to review the paper.

 

List of Reviewers:

 

Some reviewers of the journal are listed as below:

 

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, 20 Kirkwood Ave, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand


Young Researches and Elite Club, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran


Department of Mechanical engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran


Department of Biosystem Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran


Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea


Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran


Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 12616, Tallinn, Estonia


Electrical Engineering Department, Sunlife Company, Baku, Azerbaijan


Arian Company, Yerevan, Armenia


School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, ZhouKou Normal University, Zhoukou , 466000, China


Department of Ship and Marine Engineering, JiangSu Shipping College, Nantong 226010, China


Water Resources Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran


Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran


Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran


Professor of Computer Science, Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia


Department of Computer Engineering, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University


College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Zhengzhou University of Industrial Technology, Zhengzhou 451100, Henan, China


Pontificia Univ Catol Rio Janeiro, Dept Engn Civil Ambiental, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil


School of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Henan Institute of Technology, Xinxiang, Henan 453003, China


School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Environment, Hubei University of Technology, Wuhan 430068, China


Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology, Qinhuangdao 066004, China


School of Architecture, Shangqiu Polytechnic, Shangqiu, Henan, 476000, China


Slovak Univ Technol Bratislava, Radlinskeho 11, Bratislava 81368, Slovakia


Univ Thessaly, Dept Informat & Telecommun, Papasiopoulou 2-4, Lamia 35131, Greece


Guilin University of Aerospace Technology; Guilin Guangxi 541004 China


Inst Engn Sistemas & Comp Invest & Desenvolviment, INESC ID, Lisbon, Portugal


Key Research Project of the Anhui Provincial Education Department, China


College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Chizhou University, Chizhou 247000, China


Faculty of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology´╝îWiejska 45A, 15-531, Bialystok, Poland


Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology, Pudukkottai, 622507, Tamil Nadu, India


Univ Modena & Reggio Emilia, Dept Engn Enzo Ferrari, Modena, Italy


Iraqi Ministry of Education Qadisiyah, Dewanyah, 58001, Iraq 


Univ Cape Town, Dept Mech Engn, BISRU, ZA-7701 Cape Town, South Africa


Huzhou Vocational and Technical College, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province,313000, China


Univ Republica, Engn Fac, Comp Sci Inst, Montevideo 11300, Uruguay


Univ Western Macedonia, Dept Commun & Digital Media, Fourka 52100, Kastoria, Greece


Logistics Department, Taizhou Vocational & Technical College, Taizhou, Zhejiang, 318000, China


Univ Cape Town, Dept Mech Engn, BISRU, ZA-7701 Cape Town, South Africa


Professor, School of Electrical and Information Engineering,University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa


Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton Duc Thang University,Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam


College of Information Engineering´╝îJiaozuo University, Jiaozuo, Henan 454100, P. R. China


Dell Medical School, the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


Young Researchers and Elite Club, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University, Dezful, Iran Kimia Andimeshk Petrochemical Industries Company, Khuzestan-Iran


Univ Coll Dublin, Sch Civil Engn, Struct Dynam & Assessment Lab, Dublin, Ireland


Osaka Univ, Grad Sch Engn, Div Elect Elect & Infocommun Engn, Suita, Osaka 5650871, Japan


Department of Electrical Engineering, Liaoning University of Technology, Jinzhou, Liaoning,121001, China


Indian Inst Technol, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India


Reviewers Role
Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a peer reviewed (double-blind referee) journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form. 
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest. 
All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received. 
No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately. 
Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge. 
There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted. 
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review 

  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines 
  • Purpose and Objective of the article 
  • Method of using transitions in the article 
  • Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided 
  • References provided to substantiate the content 
  • Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  • Plagiarism issues 
  • Suitability of the article to the need 
A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article and they are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals. 

Guidance for Peer Reviewers
All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. At AEIS we believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.
As a reviewer you will be advising the editors, who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill the journal’s reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer – it as at this stage you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.
Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author Instruction with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journals' aims and scope is available on “Journal Information” menu and pages.
The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers on the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection. 
You should also:
  • Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
  • Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
  • Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
  • If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
  • Treat the author’s work the way you would like your own to be treated
Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only and the comments will be shared with the authors. You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this).