Guidelines for Reviewers
The peer review process of the International Journal of Automotive Engineering (IJAE) is dependent on theprofessionalism of its volunteer reviewers. All reviewers are experts in the field of research; therefore, they
are in the best position to judge the quality and importance of the work submitted to IJAE. The names of thereviewers will remain anonymous to the authors, as IJAE operates a single-blind review throughout thereview process.

I. Peer Review Process
1.
2.
3.

The author submits a manuscript, and this will receive a unique identification number.
The Editorial Office checks if the manuscript’s formatting and style is in accordance with theInstructions to Authors.
The Editor-in-Chief screens the manuscript and decides whether or not to send it for full peer

review. If the decision is not to send the manuscript for review, the Editor-in-Chief will send an email to notify the author of rejection and the reason for it.
4. If the Editor-in-Chief decides to send the manuscript for a full peer review, the Editor-in-Chief
assigns an Associate Editor who will be responsible for selecting external reviewers and evaluating
the manuscript.
5. Associate Editors select, in general, two reviewers from the list of authorized reviewers to evaluate
the manuscript.
6. Reviewers agree to review the manuscript.
7. Reviewers submit their judgement and review comments to the Associate Editor.
8. The Associate Editor reviews the reviewers’ reports and submits the review comments to theEditor-in-Chief .
9. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the reviewers’ and the Associate Editor’s reports and makes a finaldecision.
10. The Editor-in-Chief sends a signed e-mail with the decision to the author.
11. If the author is given the opportunity to revise the paper, he/she revises the paper according to thereview comments and resubmits. The paper then goes through the same process above, but theEditor-in-Chief may choose to accept the paper without further review by the reviewers.
IJAE expects that peer review be fair, unbiased, and timely. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript forpublication are based on the manuscript’s importance to the field, originality and clarity of expression, thestudy’s validity, and its relevance to IJAE’s aims and scope. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for all
decisions made to the manuscripts.
IJAE supports and adheres to the guidelines and best practices including Recommendations for the Conduct,Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
1

(http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/) by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (a joint statement bythe Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE], the Directory of Open Access Journals [DOAJ], the World
Association for Medical Editors [WAME], and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association [OASPA];
https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/).
The points below provide general guidelines for the peer review process. Please thoroughly read theinstructions and required ethics and policy statements, along with the journal instructions. If you have anyquestions, please contact the Editorial Office of IJAE.
E-mail: ijae@jsae.or.jp

II. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
1. TimelinessYour review comments for new submissions are due in three (3) weeks from the day you agreed to review
the manuscript. If you are unable to meet the deadline, please contact the Editorial Office immediately sothat the Associate Editor can decide whether to extend the deadline or assign an alternate reviewer. Yourreview comments for revised manuscripts are also due in three (3) weeks from the day it was assigned toyou.
2. Conflict of Interest for Reviewers
Any potential conflicts of interest as a reviewer of a manuscript must be brought to the attention of theAssociate Editor before you begin the review process. If you are involved, in present or in the past, in any
part of the research presented in the manuscripts, including but not limited to financial interests,
collaborating with the authors, and other relationships or connections, both professional or personal, withany of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the manuscript, which might prevent you fromproviding a fair and unbiased review, you should decline the review task and inform the Associate Editor sothat another individual can be invited to review the manuscript.
3. Confidentiality
The review process will remain strictly confidential.
 Do not discuss or mention, in any way or to anyone, the contents of the paper before or after thereview process.
 The manuscript submitted for peer-review is a privileged document. All materials must be treated inconfidence. If additional advice from a colleague or any parties is thought to be helpful, pleasecontact the Editorial Office in advance to obtain permission from the Associate Editor. Do not pass
the manuscript on to your colleagues or other third parties without first obtaining the Associate
Editor’s consent.
 Before publication, the research described in the paper should not be used as a reference in thereviewer’s own work. You must refrain from citing or referring to the work before its publication.
2

Do not retain any copies of the reviewed manuscripts, and do not use their content or takescientific, financial, personal, or other advantage of material available to you through the peer
review process.

4. Constructive Comments
Provide objective and constructive feedback in your review to encourage the author to improve the paper
and their writing. Refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making derogatory personalcomments.
5. Impartiality
Reviewer comments should be based on an impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal orprofessional bias. All comments should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, andquality of writing as well as on the relevance to the IJAE’s scope and mission, without regard to race, ethnic
origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors. If you determine that you have a potential bias during thereview of the paper, please notify the Associate Editor immediately.
6. Competence
You should accept an assignment only if you have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment.
If you think certain aspects of a manuscript are outside your field of expertise or realize that your expertiseis limited, you should notify the Editorial Office so that we can decide whether you should continue andaddress your areas of expertise only, or whether to assign an alternate reviewer(s).
7. Manuscripts You Have Previously Handled
If you are invited to assess a manuscript you previously reviewed for another journal, please consider themanuscript as a new submission. In such case, the authors may have made changes according to the previous
review comments, and the IJAE’s criteria for evaluation may differ from those of the other journal.
8. Ethical Policies
Please note any suspicious evidence of unethical conduct and bring it to the attention of the editor
immediately. Please see our general publication ethics policies here.

III. Invitation for Peer Review
1. General Process
Reviewer invitations are sent by e-mail from the submission system. Use the links in the e-mail to accept or
decline the invitation to review. The invitation includes manuscript details, such as the title, the names ofauthors, and the abstract, which may help you to determine whether the subject of the manuscript is withinyour areas of expertise.

3If you are unable to agree to review a manuscript, please click the decline link in the e-mail. In such cases, itwould be appreciated if you suggested another potential reviewer.
If you click the link to accept the invitation to review a manuscript, you will receive a notification via e-mailabout how to log-in to our online system to access the manuscript in PDF format and instructions forsubmitting your comments through the online system.
2. Revised Manuscripts
The revised version of a manuscript is normally sent back to some or all of the original reviewers for rereview. If you are assigned to review a manuscript you previously reviewed, please ensure that revisions
requested in your original review have been addressed in the revised manuscript. Please be careful not toraise additional, or new, issues that were not addressed in the previous review comments, and make sure tolimit any new amendments or additions to points that respond to the comments.

IV. Your Comments
1. General Guidelines
 Evaluate whether the submitted manuscript fits the scope and aim of IJAE and demonstrates
sufficient evidence of originality, in addition to the paper’s validity and potential impact to thereadership of the Journal.
 Your review comments should indicate whether the writing is clear and concise and whether thestyle of writing and structure of the paper are appropriate, which will allow the readers tounderstand the content easily.
 Evaluate the work’s scientific accuracy and comment on any missing information or
methodological flaws.
 All criticisms should be specific. Provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate
general statements to help editors in their evaluations and decisions and help authors with revisions.
 Any personal criticism against the authors, derogatory personal comments, or unfoundedaccusations must be avoided.
 Avoid making any negative comments or unjustified criticisms of any work that is mentioned in themanuscript.
 You should not suggest that the authors cite your work to increase your citation count. Suggestions
must be based only on valid academic or technological reasons.
 Remain anonymous as the Journal operates a single-blind review process.
2. Points to Consider
Points to consider in your review include: Significance of the manuscript to the research community
 Originality and reliability of the manuscript4


Interest and the potential impact to the broad readership of the Journal
Weaknesses of the manuscript that need to be addressed in the revision process
Accuracy of the title and abstract and keywords
Sufficiency of contents, figures, and tables
Appropriate and accurate references
Quality and readability of the English language as presented in the manuscript
Clarity of the aim
Appropriate statistical analysis, if applicable
Substantial data presented in the result section
Conclusions supported by the data presented

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor
In IJAE’s peer review management system, there is a section titled “Confidential Comments to the Editor.”
Your comments in this section will be seen only by the editors, as these will not be sent to the authors. If
there are any possible conflicts of interest, ethical issues, or any other comment you wish not to share to theauthors, please comment regarding them in this section.
4. Comments to the Authors
Your peer review comments should include an introductory paragraph, which states your overall impressionof the paper. This paragraph should be followed by specific comments, which may be divided into two
sections such as major and minor points. Your comments are sent to the author as a part of the decision
letter. However, please keep in mind that it is inappropriate to include any statements related to theacceptance or rejection of the paper.
5. Decisions on Manuscript Publication
All decisions on the manuscript publication, which include acceptance, revisions or rejection, are made by
the Editor-in-Chief of IJAE after all the reviewer and Associate Editor reports are submitted and evaluated.

5