CAET operates a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are anonymized throughout the review process.

All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening (desk review) to assess their suitability for the journal's scope, scholarly quality, and compliance with submission requirements and ethical standards. Manuscripts that pass this stage are evaluated by independent experts in relevant fields, including members of the Editorial Board and external reviewers.

To maintain academic independence, integrity, and diversity of perspectives, CAET seeks to include reviewers external to the Editorial Board whenever possible. Typically, each manuscript is reviewed by at least two qualified reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, evidence-informed, and respectful feedback to support both rigorous evaluation and the continued development of scholarship in the field.

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Editors based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and the journal's policies and standards.

• Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback
• Evaluate the manuscript’s:
  • originality and contribution to the field
  • conceptual and methodological rigor
  • clarity, structure, and coherence
  • relevance to CAET’s aims and scope
• Offer specific and actionable suggestions for improvement 
• Indicate whether the manuscript should be:
  • accepted
  • revised (minor or major)
  • rejected
• Identify any ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, or inappropriate use of materials 
• Maintain professional and respectful language in all comments

• Respond to review invitations within 3 days
• Submit completed reviews within 21 days of accepting an invitation  
• Notify the Editorial Office promptly if additional time is needed

• Not share or distribute the manuscript or its content
• Not use unpublished material for their own research 
• Avoid revealing their identity within the review report

• Personal or professional relationships with the authors 
• Institutional affiliation overlap 
• Direct academic competition or collaboration

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, images, data, or review materials to publicly available AI systems or external services that may retain, reuse, or disclose submitted content.

AI tools may be used for limited language support or editorial assistance where appropriate; however, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and scholarly quality of their review reports.

1. Invitation to review 
2. Acceptance or decline of the invitation 
3. Completion of the review within the requested timeframe 
4. Submission of the review report via the journal system 
5. Editorial decision based on reviewer reports

• Originality and novelty 
• Significance and contribution to the field 
• Theoretical and/or practical relevance 
• Methodological soundness (where applicable) 
• Quality of presentation and structure 
• Clarity of language
  

• A brief summary of the manuscript 
• Major comments (key issues to address) 
• Minor comments (suggestions for improvement)

• Acknowledgement of reviewer service by the journal
• Complimentary online access to current CAET issues during periods of active reviewer service.  
• Certificates of reviewing service upon request  
• Opportunities for continued collaboration with the journal  
• Invitations to participate in journal-related initiatives, special issues, and professional activities  
• Consideration for Editorial Board or advisory roles based on expertise, engagement, and service

• A short academic or professional biography 
• Institutional affiliation 
• Areas of expertise (keywords) 
• Availability to review  
• ORCID iD (strongly encouraged)