Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for your willingness to contribute to the peer review process of IJATA. Your expertise in space science, satellite technology, and aerospace engineering helps maintain the quality and integrity of our publications.
Peer reviewers with expertise in space systems, satellites, remote sensing, ground stations, aircraft design, and related fields play a crucial role in advancing aerospace science. Your expert evaluation ensures that only rigorous, methodologically sound research is published in IJATA.
Become a ReviewerThe Importance of Peer Review
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. As a reviewer, you help:
Review Process Overview
Evaluation Criteria
When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following key aspects:
- System, mission, or measurement parameters are accurate and well-described
- Methodology is rigorous and appropriate for the stated objectives
- Instrumentation and calibration are properly reported
- Uncertainty or validation analysis is included where appropriate
- Novel contribution to space science or aerospace engineering
- Clear advancement over prior work in the field
- Potential impact on satellite, remote sensing, or aviation applications
- Addresses a meaningful gap in the literature
- Appropriate experimental, computational, or design methodology
- Simulations or models validated against benchmark data if used
- Sensors, ground stations, or platforms properly characterized
- Reproducibility and analysis adequate
- Data (imagery, signal, or performance data) clearly presented
- Figures, ground tracks, and plots properly labeled
- Comparison with benchmark or ground-truth data provided
- Uncertainty or error analysis reported
- Results placed in the context of space science or aerospace engineering
- Limitations and sources of error acknowledged
- Conclusions supported by the presented data
- Purely commercial or promotional material NOT in scope
- Current, relevant references cited
- ISO/CCSDS/ITU/IAU standards referenced where applicable
- Clear and concise writing (Arabic or English)
- Professional figure/table quality
Structuring Your Review
A well-structured review helps authors understand and address your concerns effectively. We recommend the following format:
Provide a brief overview of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. State your general recommendation and the main reasons for it.
List significant issues that must be addressed for publication. Be specific about what needs improvement and why.
- Methodological concerns
- Missing validation or ground-truth comparison
- Interpretation issues
- Statistical or measurement problems
- Missing key literature
List smaller issues that would improve the manuscript but don't affect its core validity.
- Typos and grammar
- Figure/table improvements
- Clarification requests
- Additional references
Provide any concerns you don't want to share with authors, such as suspicions of plagiarism or ethical issues.
Best Practices for Reviewers
✅ Do:
- Be constructive and respectful in your comments
- Provide specific, actionable feedback
- Focus on scientific merit, not writing style
- Acknowledge the manuscript's strengths
- Suggest ways to improve the work
- Be fair and objective in your evaluation
- Complete your review within the agreed timeframe
- Disclose any conflicts of interest
- Maintain confidentiality of the review process
❌ Don't:
- Use harsh or disrespectful language
- Make vague criticisms without explanations
- Demand unnecessary experiments or revisions
- Reject based on disagreement with conclusions if methods are sound
- Request citations of your own work unnecessarily
- Attempt to identify authors or break double-blind review
- Share manuscript contents before publication
- Use ideas from the manuscript in your own work
Review Timeline
| Stage | Timeframe | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Invitation Response | Within 3 days | Accept or decline review invitation |
| Initial Review | 3-4 weeks | Complete and submit full review |
| Re-review (if needed) | 2 weeks | Evaluate revised manuscript |
Ethics and Confidentiality
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are privileged communications. You must:
- Not share the manuscript with anyone without editor permission
- Not use information from the manuscript for your own benefit
- Delete all manuscript files after completing your review
- Not attempt to contact the authors directly
Conflicts of Interest
Decline to review if you have any of the following relationships with the authors:
- Current or recent collaborator (within 3 years)
- Same institution or department
- Close personal relationship
- Financial interest in the research
- Strong bias for or against the research topic
Ethical Concerns
If you suspect ethical issues, notify the editor immediately:
- Plagiarism or duplicate publication
- Fabricated or manipulated data
- Unethical research conduct
- Inappropriate authorship
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Reviewer Recognition
We value and recognize the contributions of our reviewers:
Sample Review Comments
"The methodology is generally sound, but I recommend including a ground-truth comparison for validation (see lines 156-178). This would strengthen your conclusions about sensor performance. Additionally, please clarify the calibration procedure used for the results in Table 2 (currently not specified). Consider also discussing recent work by Smith et al. (2025) that addresses similar questions."
"The methodology is weak and the results are not convincing. This paper needs major improvements before it can be published."
Notice how the good example provides specific, actionable feedback with line numbers and suggestions, while the poor example is vague and unhelpful.
Ready to Contribute?
Join our panel of expert reviewers and help advance aerospace science
Apply to Become a ReviewerContact our editorial office for any questions about the review process:
Email: aerospace@src.edu.iq