Reviewer Guidelines
The Journal of Advanced Electrochemical Storage (JAES) relies on the expertise and dedication of peer reviewers to maintain high scientific standards and ensure the integrity of the review process. These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in evaluating manuscripts fairly, objectively, and constructively.
Reviewer Responsibilities
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Do not share or discuss them with others unless authorized by the editorial office.
• Objectivity: Reviews should be fair, impartial, and based solely on the scientific merit and relevance of the manuscript.
• Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the agreed deadline (typically 2–3 weeks). If you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the editorial office promptly.
• Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, constructive comments aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. Avoid personal remarks or unsubstantiated criticisms.
Criteria for Evaluation
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
• Scientific quality and originality
• Relevance to electrochemical energy storage and alignment with JAES scope
• Soundness of methodology and experimental design
• Clarity of data presentation and analysis
• Significance and impact of findings
• Proper citation of related work and literature context
• Language quality and clarity
Review Report Structure
A well-structured review report typically includes:
• Summary: Brief overview of the work and main contributions.
• Major Comments: Substantive issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted.
• Minor Comments: Smaller corrections, suggestions for clarity, and typographical errors.
• Recommendation: Choose one of the following:
- o Accept
- o Minor Revision
- o Major Revision
- o Reject
Ethical Considerations
• Declare any conflicts of interest (financial, personal, or academic) that could influence your review.
• Notify the editor if you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct.
Anonymity
JAES follows a single-blind peer review process: reviewer identities are anonymous to the authors. Please ensure your comments do not reveal your identity.
Reviewer Recognition
JAES acknowledges the invaluable service of its reviewers through:
• Certificates of review (available upon request)
• Annual reviewer acknowledgment list (opt-in)
• Eligibility for Best Reviewer Awards (starting in 2026)
Contact
For review-related inquiries or to request guidance on a specific manuscript, please contact: office: 📧 editor@pubj.org