Peer Review Process

Advance Sustainable Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) is an international peer-reviewed journal published by Universitas PGRI Semarang through the Science and Technology Research Centre. Every research article submitted to ASSET is peer reviewed. Peer review ensures that only sound, original and relevant science is published, and our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the standards of the journal.

1. Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editor first screens every submission for scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines and the article template, a completed Generative AI declaration, and similarity (see Screening for Plagiarism). Manuscripts that are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, poor English, or fall outside the Aims & Scope may be rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).

2. Type of peer review

ASSET uses a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. Authors must remove names, affiliations and other identifying information from the manuscript file submitted for review. Each manuscript that passes the initial evaluation is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the field. Reviewers declare any conflict of interest before accepting an assignment (see Conflict of Interest).

3. Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • is original and contributes to the field;
  • is methodologically sound;
  • follows appropriate ethical guidelines;
  • presents results clearly that support the conclusions;
  • correctly references relevant previous work.

Language correction is not part of peer review, but reviewers may suggest corrections to the manuscript.

4. Timeline

  • Initial editorial screening: about 1–2 weeks after submission;
  • Peer review: reviewers are given 4 weeks to complete their review;
  • Revision by authors: generally within 2–4 weeks, depending on the extent of the revision requested.

5. Editorial decision

Based on the reviewer reports, the Editor makes one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision (revised manuscripts may be sent back to the reviewers), or Decline. Where reviewers disagree, the Editor may invite an additional reviewer. The decision is sent to the corresponding author together with the reviewers' comments.

6. The Editor's decision is final

Reviewers advise the Editor; the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject an article. Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief with a reasoned explanation at asset@upgris.ac.id.