Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to Heritage Technology and Applied Science (HTAS) are first received by the Editor-in-Chief, who assigns a Handling Editor responsible for managing the review process. The Handling Editor conducts an initial desk review to assess the manuscript’s suitability for the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with the submission guidelines, originality, and adherence to research and publication ethics. Only manuscripts that successfully pass the desk review proceed to the external peer review stage.

Review Process

The peer review process at HTAS follows a double-blind peer review system involving three independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The review process consists of the following stages:

1
Initial Desk Review
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript for suitability, submission compliance, originality, and adherence to research and publication ethics.
2
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to three independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
3
Double-Blind Peer Review
The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Authors are not informed of the identities of reviewers, and reviewers are not informed of the identities of authors.
4
Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers independently assess the manuscript according to the journal’s scientific, methodological, presentation, and ethical criteria.
5
Reviewer Recommendations
Each reviewer provides detailed comments and recommends an editorial outcome based on the evaluation.
6
Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor considers the reviewers’ recommendations and determines the appropriate editorial outcome.
Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

1 Originality and novelty of the research
2 Scientific significance and contribution to the relevant field
3 Methodological rigor and appropriateness
4 Quality of data analysis and interpretation
5 Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript
6 Validity and consistency of the conclusions
7 Compliance with research integrity and publication ethics
Review Outcomes

Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations, with one of the following possible outcomes:

✓ Accept
↗ Minor Revision
↻ Major Revision
× Reject

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor makes the final editorial decision by considering the reviewers’ recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial standards. Editorial decisions remain independent, and reviewers’ recommendations do not automatically determine the final decision.