Reviewer Guidelines

Andean Journal of Engineering Sciences greatly appreciates the contribution of its reviewers to the scientific publication process. Peer review is fundamental to ensuring the quality and integrity of published articles. The diagram below summarizes the reviewer workflow and its connections to the editorial process.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

AJES operates a double-blind review system: authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. All manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. The entire process is managed through the system, from receipt of the invitation to submission of the review report.

Upon receiving the invitation, the reviewer has 14 business days to respond whether they accept or decline the review. Once accepted, the complete report must be submitted within a maximum of 30 business days. If it becomes impossible to meet these deadlines at any point, the reviewer is asked to notify the editor in advance so that a timely solution can be found. If declined, suggestions of alternative reviewers with relevant expertise are appreciated.

2. Evaluation Form

The review report is completed through the official OJS system form, structured in eight sections. The comment sections (strengths, weaknesses, and recommendation) will be shared with the authors; confidential comments to the editor will not be disclosed. The form evaluates the following aspects:

• Relevance and scope: alignment with the journal's focus, originality and innovation, and relevance and potential impact of the work.
• Scientific quality: problem statement, clarity of objectives and hypotheses, methodological rigor, validity and reliability of data, analysis and interpretation of results, and coherence between objectives, methods, and conclusions.
• Presentation and structure: clarity of the title and abstract, overall organization, precision of writing, quality of figures and tables, adequacy of references, and compliance with the required citation style.
• Ethical aspects: declaration of conflicts of interest in the manuscript, data availability statement, declaration of generative artificial intelligence use (if applicable), and ethical approval (if applicable).

3. Comments for Authors

The form includes two free-text fields that will be shared with the authors: one for the manuscript's strengths and one for weaknesses and suggestions for improvement. The following practices are recommended:

• Number the comments to facilitate a point-by-point response from the authors.
• Distinguish within the weaknesses which observations are mandatory and which are optional suggestions.
• Be specific, constructive, and respectful in all comments.
• Avoid comments that may reveal the reviewer's identity.

4. Scope and Declaration of Expertise

If any section of the manuscript falls outside the reviewer's area of expertise, this should be explicitly stated in the report, indicating which aspects could not be assessed with sufficient depth. This transparency is part of good editorial practice and does not negatively affect the evaluation of the reviewer's contribution.

5. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. They must not be shared with third parties, used for any purpose other than the evaluation, or cited or referenced prior to official publication. Confidentiality extends to all information contained in the manuscript, including data, figures, methods, and preliminary conclusions. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the assignment and notify the editor immediately upon identifying any of the following situations: recent collaboration with any of the authors, affiliation with the same institution, financial conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript, personal bias that may compromise the objectivity of the evaluation, or prior review of the same manuscript at another journal. Timely identification of these conflicts is essential to preserving the integrity of the editorial process.

7. Reviewer Recognition

AJES recognizes and values the work of its reviewers. Those who complete a review will receive the following benefits:

• Digital review certificate issued by Andean Publishing, valid for curriculum vitae and academic records.
• Inclusion in the annual reviewer list published on the journal's official website at the close of each year.
• APC discount for future submissions to any journal within the Andean Journals group.

For inquiries about the review process or the status of an assigned manuscript: editorial.ajes@andeanjournals.org