Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Science, Engineering and Technology journal operates under a double-blind peer review model. Editors are committed to ensuring that reviewers'and authors'identities are protected and that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and convenient.

All articles undergo external peer review conducted by experts in the same or closely related field, ensuring the expertise and relevance of feedback provided. The peer review process has two main functions:

to provide feedback on the article, ensuring high-quality publication,
to provide feedback to authors that may assist them in preparing high-quality articles.

The review process begins only if the submission aligns with the journal's scope and meets specific quality criteria and technical requirements. In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief (or Deputy Editor-in-Chief) assigns submissions to a Section Editor (Editor) responsible for overseeing the editorial process and identifying suitable reviewers. All members of the Editorial Board have the potential to serve as Editors for individual submissions. When selecting an Editor for a submission, the Editor-in-Chief prioritizes board members with expertise in the relevant section or topic, while also considering factors such as potential conflicts of interest and the Editor's availability. If the specified conditions are not met, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor reserves the right to reject the submission in the initial phase without proceeding to peer review (Desk Reject). Therefore, the Editor-in-Chief and/or Section Editor carry out an initial evaluation of the manuscript, verify their compliance with the scope of the journal and refer them for further review.

The Editor, typically a subject-matter expert and either a member of the Editorial Board or an invited specialist (for Special Issues), plays a pivotal role in ensuring the publication of high-quality, original, and impactful research within their specific section. They are instrumental in upholding the scientific rigor and reputation of the journal while fostering a collaborative and respectful environment for authors and reviewers. Manuscripts undergo evaluation by the Editor, followed by a rigorous review process involving a minimum of two expert reviewers in their respective fields. Additional reviewers may be invited by the Editor if deemed necessary. Members of the editorial board may contribute to the peer review process by serving as reviewers, offering feedback and recommendations regarding manuscript suitability for publication. However, individuals are assigned specific roles to prevent conflicts of interest; for instance, a person cannot simultaneously hold the positions of editor and reviewer for the same submission.

The editorial decision is based on the recommendations of the reviewers and encompasses the following options:

A) Accept Submission

B) Request Revisions (Minor Revision - Revisions will not be subject to a new round of peer reviews)

C) Request Revisions (Major Revision - Revisions will be subject to a new round of peer reviews)

D) Decline Submission (Reject)

The majority opinion should generally guide the decision-making process. However, in exceptional cases, the final decision rests with the Editor. Additionally, the Editor reserves the right to request a second round of review for certain articles. In such instances, the Editor may invite the same or different reviewers to ensure that the revised article meets the necessary quality standards. Reviewers are expected to thoroughly evaluate each article to assess its suitability for publication in the journal. Their feedback should not only assist authors in revising their articles but also aid the Editor in making the final decision. Both the editor and referees should refer to the Publication Ethics, Per review policy, and Author guidelines for general guidance, ensuring alignment with the instructions provided to authors. Also, to provide a high-quality review, editors have developed an Article Review Form. This form can be utilized by both the Editor and reviewers (referees) during the review process and may be uploaded along with their comments. While the use of this form is not mandatory, it is recommended for consistency and thoroughness in the review process.

Note: The editors endeavor to enlist qualified reviewers capable of conducting thorough assessments. This entails engaging publishing-active researchers who are experts in their respective scientific disciplines, abreast of contemporary developments in their fields, and able to conduct reviews within a reasonable timeframe. However, it should be noted that the journal cannot guarantee expedited review or immediate acceptance of manuscripts for publication.

Special Issues and Double-Blind Review Process

In cases where Guest Editors submit their own work for publication in special issues, these submissions are assigned to a member of the Editorial Board who is not involved in the special issue. This ensures that the double-blind peer review process remains impartial. Additionally, articles authored by Guest Editors will include a statement (Transparent Statement) indicating that the review process was conducted independently of the guest editorial team. These measures reinforce the integrity and transparency of our peer review process for all special issue submissions.

Criteria for Article Evaluation

The Editor and reviewers' comments serve as valuable guidance for authors, aiding in improving the overall quality, utility, and readability of the article. By focusing on highlighted issues raised in the review, authors can effectively address areas needing improvement. Constructive feedback from reviewers is essential for enhancing the article's quality, utility, and readability, and reviewers are encouraged to suggest improvements and potential additional reviewers. Some of the most important criteria for evaluating the acceptance of an article are summarized below:

Scope:

The article is within the journal's scope (topics)
The article type is within the journal's scope (research, review, case study).
Adherence to quality and publication ethics standards.
Does the title of the article accurately reflect the major focus of this article?
Articles failing to meet expected standards are subject to desk rejection.

Article structure:

Is the article clear, concise, and well organized?
The article includes Abstract, Introduction, Main Text, Conclusion, and References.

Originality (novelty) and value to readers:

The article has scientific contributions that face the challenging research topics.
The article demonstrates scientific rigor and accuracy while presenting novel findings or insights.
Presence of significant additional material compared to existing literature.
Demonstration of value and contribution to the scientific or professional area/discipline and potential implications beyond the field.
Plagiarism is unacceptable and should be highlighted.

Referencing:

Inclusion of sufficient and recent literature.
The references are listed in the bibliography and vice versa. The references are in the correct order.
Detail and completeness of the literature survey.
Accuracy and completeness of references in both article and bibliography.
Consistency in referencing style according to author's guidelines.

Abstract:

Is it well-structured and well-written (citation-free text that summarizes the objectives, the methodology, the main findings, and the results of the study)?
Compliance with word count and formatting guidelines (150-250 words in a single paragraph).
The keywords accurately reflect the content of the article, and there are sufficient and relevant keywords included.

Introduction:

Clarity, structure, and adequacy of background information.
Clear articulation of objectives and problem statement.
Explanation of the study's significance and contributions.
Review of relevant literature and clear statement of the article's aim.

Content clarity:

Is the discussion part of the article well-structured and well-written?
Organization, clarity, and conciseness of ideas.
Understandability of concepts presented.

Conclusions and Results:

Clarity and structure of conclusions.
Justification and compelling nature of conclusions.
Presentation of important outcomes and recommendations for further research.
Are there specific recommendations for further research?

Additional technical criteria:

Figures and tables are numbered and contain descriptive titles.
All figures and tables are referenced and explained in the text.
The figures and tables are clear and of good quality.
Mathematical expressions are numbered consecutively and explained in the text.
Abbreviations and acronymsare defined the first time they are used.
The article is composed in clear, coherent English, devoid of any notable errors concerning spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, or formatting.
The article is written according to the Author's guidelines and the required template?

Referees are encouraged to suggest additional material that would enhance the value of the article. They should feel free to propose approaches they believe would make the article more useful. Referees are welcome to provide comments to help the author(s) focus on the highlighted issues they have raised in the review process. Also, each reviewer can suggest additional reviewers.

Please check our Publication Ethics to see the editors, reviewers, and authors responsibilities.

Additional resources for editors and reviewers:

REGISTER TO BECOME A REVIEWER

Are you passionate about staying updated with the latest research and scholarly articles in your field? Do you have insights and expertise you're eager to share? If so, we invite you to join our community of reviewers! By providing constructive feedback on submissions, you play a vital role in shaping the direction and quality of the articles we publish.

Professional Development: Reviewing articles enhances critical thinking and analytical skills, supporting your professional growth.
Access to Latest Research: Reviewing provides insight into the latest developments in your field, keeping you informed and current.
Visibility: Reviewer names are published on the journal’s website, and we encourage Editors and authors to verify reviews on platforms like Web of Science to further recognize reviewer contributions.
Recognition: Upon request, reviewers receive a certificate acknowledging their contribution, enhancing their reputation as field experts.
Contribution to Quality Assurance: By upholding high standards and integrity, you help ensure the quality of published research.
Editorial Board Membership: Qualified reviewers with a strong academic record may apply for Editorial Board membership after completing multiple reviews.
APC Discount: Reviewers who complete three high-quality reviews qualify for a 50% APC discount on one paper where they are an author, while five high-quality reviews qualify for a full 100% APC discount. For papers with multiple co-authors who have contributed reviews, a combined total of five high-quality reviews is required for a 50% discount, or eight reviews for a full APC exemption.

When registering, check the option "Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal" and be sure to enter your area of interest and expertise ("Reviewing interests").

List of Reviewers

More information:

Abstracting and indexing

Current Issue & Archive