The authors must refer to the IAES journals template for writing format and style (Please download and use as a template for initial manuscript submission). Any papers not fulfilling the requirements based on the guidelines for authors will not be processed.
It is now the policy of IAES journals to ask the author of each submitted paper to nominate three prospective reviewers for the paper. The Editor of IAES journals is very grateful if you could send us the names and full contact details (including correct email address) of three individuals who have significant experience in the area covered by your paper. The Editor will then select one of them and send your paper to them asking if they are willing to act as a reviewer of your paper. The Editor will also send your paper to two additional reviewers from our reviewers.
As soon as you send us your suggestions for reviewers, your paper (if it matches the guide for authors) will be sent out for review. The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully in 30 to 60 days.
The journal is committed to promoting transparency, accuracy, and reproducibility in scholarly publishing. To support this commitment, authors are required to adhere to established reporting guidelines appropriate to their study design, as recommended by the EQUATOR Network and other relevant professional bodies.
Authors must:
Examples of Accepted Guidelines
| Study Type | Reporting Guideline |
| Randomized Controlled Trials | CONSORT |
| Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses | PRISMA |
| Observational Studies | STROBE |
| Diagnostic Accuracy Studies | STARD |
| Qualitative Research | COREQ |
| Case Reports | CARE |
| Animal Studies | ARRIVE |
| Economic Evaluations | CHEERS |
Authors can find detailed guidance and downloadable checklists on the EQUATOR Network website.
The editorial team reserves the right to request revisions or reject manuscripts that do not meet applicable reporting standards. Compliance with reporting guidelines is a key component of our commitment to research integrity, reproducibility, and high-quality scholarship.
The publisher fully adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows ICMJE recommendations for ethical publishing. Manuscripts must align with the journal’s focus, scope, and author guidelines. Submissions must be written in clear, grammatically correct English. Authors who are not native English speakers are strongly encouraged to have their manuscripts professionally edited prior to submission.
Submissions must be original, unpublished, and of scientific merit, novelty, or contribute new knowledge relevant to the journal’s scope. Authors are expected to present their work truthfully, without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or inappropriate data manipulation. All manuscripts will be screened using iThenticate for similarity checking.
IAES journals implement a single-blind peer review process for all titles under its publishing umbrella, in which reviewers remain anonymous to authors, while authors’ identities are disclosed to the reviewers.
All submitted manuscripts undergo a structured and rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scholarly value of published content.
Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the editorial office for scope alignment, formatting compliance, language quality, and ethical concerns. Plagiarism detection software (e.g., iThenticate) is used to check for originality. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s basic standards may be rejected without further review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial check are assigned to a subject-specific editor, who selects a minimum of two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are chosen based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers are given 2 to 4 weeks to complete their evaluations. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, the editorial team may issue reminders or reassign the manuscript to ensure timely processing. They are asked to assess submissions on the following criteria:
Editors make decisions (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject) based on reviewers’ feedback and their own judgment. Revisions may be subject to re-review by the original reviewers or reassigned, depending on the nature of the changes. Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.
The average time from submission to first decision is 30 to 60 days, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, or use the content for any purpose. The journal adheres to COPE guidelines in managing ethical issues and publication misconduct.
All parties involved in the peer review process (authors, reviewers, editors) must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The editorial office will require a declaration form at the time of submission or review acceptance. Identified conflicts are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, and if deemed significant, alternative reviewers or editors will be assigned to maintain objectivity. All disclosed COIs are kept on record and may be published alongside the article when relevant.
Any manipulation of the peer review process, including fabricated reviewers or reviews, will result in immediate rejection and institutional notification.
Authors who wish to appeal a decision must provide a written explanation with justifications. Appeals are reviewed by a member of the editorial board not previously involved with the manuscript. The decision on an appeal is final.
Editors follow best-practice guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest, ensure unbiased reviewer selection, and prevent fraudulent peer review. Manuscripts found unsuitable for publication will be rejected, and no further correspondence will follow.
All editorial decisions and revision requests will be communicated via email.
All articles published by IAES journals undergo rigorous peer review, including editorial screening, anonymous evaluation by independent experts, and revision where appropriate. This process ensures the integrity, transparency, and academic value of the published work.
