Peer Review Process

In general transparency is the key to trust despite articles are subjected to double blind peer review.

  • Researches are subjected to the scrutiny of professors, mainly in the promotion committees or to experts in the same field, before published in Central Asian Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Innovation and their points of views are transferred to authors to decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.
  • Author must carry out all correction following reviewer point of view, in case of contradictions, author can submit his point of view in a separate document that will be presented to editorial board for discussion.


  • Low quality.
  • Low English level.
  • Low novelty.
  • Not in scope.
  • More plagiarism.
  • No interest issue for the author.


  • The subject is not in journal scope.
  • Editor in chief (E.C.) discover that paper has ethical problems.
  • Some illegal actions noticed, for example, trade proposes .
  • Adding some irrelevant authors.


  • Authors have more delay in reply.
  • Authors have not attention to comments and send again error file.
  • Adding inappropriate items without attention to review.


  • May be authors contact reviewers, and reviewer do it simple.
  • Some reviewers accept or reject without any reasons.
  • The review process perform very quickly, and no useful comments.
  • E.C. and journal notice all relation between author and reviewers.


  • May be some questions or comments are still in question.
  • Reviewers and new comments.


  • Journal finds every plagiarism, illegal action, illegal adding author’s name, or other scientific problem that cause by authors.
  • Authors have more delay in review and not inform to journal.