The Eurasian Journal of Science and Engineering (EAJSE) invites scholars to join our community of peer reviewers. Please apply through email ([email protected]) by submitting your current CV if you wish to become a reviewer for a specific section of EAJSE. The standard qualifications are:

A strong background in one or more pure and applied sciences, health sciences or engineering disciplines relevant to the scope of the Eurasian Journal of Science and Engineering.
A solid understanding of research methodologies, experimental design, and data analysis.
Excellent written communication skills to provide clear and constructive feedback.
Ability to critically evaluate research articles objectively and fairly.
A commitment to upholding ethical standards in peer review and research publication.
Previous peer review experience is a plus, but not mandatory.

How to peer review for EAJSE

As a reviewer, you will play a vital role in ensuring the quality and integrity of the articles published in The Eurasian Journal of Science and Engineering (EAJSE). The key reviewer questionnaire is:

Manuscript questions	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the paper? Would it attract the interest of the right audience?
Is the Introduction well written for most readers of the targeted journal? Does it cite the appropriate papers? Does it provide a hypothesis or aim of the study?
Does the Methods section provide enough details for the general reader to repeat the experiments?
If you skip the Methods, does the Results section give the right amount of detail to understand the basic details of the experiments?
Do the Results refer to the figures in a logical order? Do the numbers in the tables add up correctly? Are any figures/tables mislabeled or unclear?
Given the data obtained in this study, did the authors perform all the logical analyses? Did they include the proper controls?
Does the Discussion address the main findings, and does it give proper recognition to similar work in this field?
In general, is the paper easy to follow and has a logical flow? Are there any language issues?
Did the authors make all their data (if there is) (e.g. sequence reads, code, questionnaires used) available for the readers?
Is this paper novel and advancing the field, or have other people done similar work?
Does the paper raise any ethical concerns? Any suspicion of plagiarism (text or experiments), duplicated or tampered images, lack of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, unethical animal experiments, or “dual use of research concern”?

Key Responsibilities of Reviewers

Conduct thorough and unbiased reviews of manuscripts submitted to the Eurasian Journal of Science and Engineering.
Evaluate the scientific soundness, methodology, relevance, and significance of the submitted manuscripts according to the above questionnaire.
Provide constructive feedback to authors regarding their research, highlighting strengths and suggesting areas for improvement.
Assess the clarity and coherence of the manuscript, offering suggestions for enhancing readability and presentation.
Adhere to the journal's ethical guidelines and ensure the confidentiality of the peer review process.
Meet the established review timelines to facilitate the timely publication of accepted articles.
Collaborate with the editorial team to address any queries or concerns related to the review process.

We kindly ask our reviewers to write their final reports on objectively analyzing the scientific aspects of the submission, clarity of the methodology and readability of whole paper which supported by the results and discussions. One of the following conclusions are asked to the reviewers to take part into the decision mechanism of the paper;

This paper is well-written, well-organized, and well-supported by scientific findings. Therefore, I recommend it be accepted in its present form.
This paper is well-written, well-organized, and well-supported by scientific findings. But, it should be accepted subject to the following condition(s). The following revisions are required. NOTE: Recommendations are required
This paper should be resubmitted for review because major revisions are required. See the following recommendations. NOTE: Comments are required
This paper should be rejected for the following reason(s). NOTE: Reasons are required

It should be known that the overall decision will be made by the Sectional Editor and the Managing Editor of the journal.

Benefits of being a Reviewer

Opportunity to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the academic community.
Recognition for your expertise and contributions through acknowledgment in published articles.
Networking opportunities with fellow researchers, scholars, and professionals in your field.
Access to the latest research findings and emerging trends in various scientific and engineering disciplines.
Contribution to the enhancement of research standards and the dissemination of high-quality research.

Privacy

During the peer review process, the utmost confidentiality of manuscripts is imperative. Reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality and refrain from sharing manuscripts or discussing their contents with individuals not involved in the peer review process.

In exceptional cases, upon request, reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group. Such consultations should occur under the assumption that manuscript confidentiality is upheld. Prior to engaging in such consultations, reviewers must inform Sectional Editor or the Managing Editor overseeing the manuscript. Additionally, reviewers should document the names of the involved colleague(s) in the “Comments to the editor” section of their review report.

Reviewers' identities will remain unspecified to the authors unless they voluntarily choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report.

Conflicts of Interest

Item	Yes	No
Do you have a conflict of interest when reviewing this paper? For example, do you collaborate with these authors? Are they your personal friends, or are they direct competitors? Have you reviewed (or rejected) this paper before?	Informe the editor	Continue to fill out the form

Reviewers must avoid reviewing submissions in situations involving conflicts of interest, which include:

Recent Publication or Current Submission: Reviewers who have authored a recent publication or submitted a manuscript with any of the authors should decline to review that submission.
Shared Affiliation: If reviewers share or have recently shared an institutional affiliation with any of the authors, they should decline the review request.
Collaboration: Reviewers who have collaborated or recently collaborated with any of the authors on research or projects should abstain from reviewing the submission.
Close Personal Connection: In cases where reviewers have a close personal relationship with any of the authors, they should not participate in reviewing the manuscript.

By observing to these guidelines, reviewers ensure the integrity and objectivity of the peer review process, encouraging a fair and unbiased evaluation of the submitted manuscripts.