Review Process

Peer review policy

Science, Engineering and Technology journal operates under a double-blind peer review model. Editors will take all reasonable steps to ensure that reviewers identities are protected and that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and convenient.

All submissions go through a review process to ensure the quality of the published articles. The peer review process has two main functions:

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

The Editor-in-Chief selects a Section Editor (Editor) to be in charge of finding suitable reviewers to review the article. The articles will be reviewed initially by the Editor and later by at least two reviewers who are experts/specialists in the respective fields. If necessary, the editor can invite more than two reviewers. The Editor will start the article review process only if it is within the journal's scope, and meet some quality criteria and technical requirements. The reviewer's recommendations determine an editorial decision:

  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 prevail. In special cases, the Editor will take the final decision. Also, the editor can decide to send the article for the second round of review. For articles that require a new review round, the editor can invite the same or different reviewers to ensure that the quality of the revised article is acceptable. The Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject any submission or to require some modifications after acceptance and before publication.

Reviewers should check the article carefully to determine whether it is appropriate for publication in the journal. Their feedback should be useful to the authors in revising their articles and for the Editor for the final decision. The editor and referees should consult the Publication EthicsPer review policy, and Author guidelines for general guidance to ensure consistency with the directions provided to authors. To provide a high-quality review, editors have prepared Paper Review Form. The Editor and reviewers (referees) can use this form for review and upload it along with their comments. The use of this form is not mandatory. 

We recommend our editors to use COPE (Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors):

Criteria for article evaluation

The Editor and reviewer's comments are a valuable aid to the author(s) to help them improve the overall technical quality, utility, and readability of the article. Their comments should help the author(s) focus on the highlighted issues raised in the review. Reviewers may offer suggestions that will improve the article's quality and readability.

Some of the most important criteria for evaluating the acceptance of an article are:

  • Scope: Is the article relevant to the topics of the Journal? This is an important step to ensure that the content falls within the scope of the journal in terms of quality and publication ethics. Articles that do not meet the journal’s expected standards are rejected with an explanation of the reasons behind a desk-reject decision.
  • Originality (Novelty): Is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate, and novel? Does the work contain significant additional material to that already published? Has its value been demonstrated? The article should be innovative and answer an important question within the field. Ideally, it should also have the potential for implications outside of the field. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. The referee should highlight notes if they find that the article has similarities with any other published paper.
  • Referencing: Does the article include sufficient and recent literature? Does the article contain a detailed literature survey? Are all the references used in the article listed in the bibliography and vice versa? Are the references used in the correct order? The author (s) are responsible for ensuring that the information in each reference is complete and accurate. The bibliography should include adequate references and recent contributions. References should be used according to the required style.
  • Abstract: Is the abstract sufficient length, and is it well-structured and well-written? The article should have a self-contained, citation-free abstract that succinctly summarizes the objectives, the methodology employed, the main findings, and the principal results of the study. Also, the abstract should present a brief and factual account of the content and conclusions of the article. Do not include figures, tables, equations, or references to other parts of the article or the reference listing at the end. The Abstract, Acknowledgement, and References are not included in the section numbering. Do not use any subheadings or point lists within the abstract. Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself. Each article should contain an abstract section within 150-250 words in a single paragraph.
  • Introduction: Is the Introduction well-written and well-structured? In the Introduction, the authors need to state the objectives of the article and provide adequate background information. Authors must ensure to describe the problem and objectives as clearly as possible. This section
  • should clearly explain the nature of the topic, previous research, purpose, and contributions. The Introduction should state the reason for the study, with a brief reference to previous work on the subject. The subject of the article should be thoroughly reviewed, and the aim (goal) of the article should be clearly stated immediately after discussing the basic references. 
  • Content clarity: Is the discussion part of the article well-structured and well-written? Are the ideas expressed clearly and concisely? Are the concepts understandable? 
  • Conclusions and results:Is the Conclusion well-written and well-structured? The evidence provided should justify the conclusions and the conclusions should be compelling enough to deserve rapid publication. The conclusion section contains the most important outcome of the article that has been drawn from the results and subsequent discussion. In the Conclusion, the author concisely presents scientific postulates on the subject matter and gives recommendations for further research. 
  • Value to Readers: Does the article contains some contributions to the scientific or professional area/discipline? 
  • Figures and tables: Are figures and tables numbered and contain descriptive titles? Are all figures and tables referenced and explained in the text? Are the figures and tables clear? Figures and tables should be numbered properly with descriptive titles. The figure caption shall be concise and placed below the figure while the table caption shall be placed above the table. They have to be numbered consecutively and appear by order for ease of discussion and reference in the text. Thus, figures/tables must be explained within the text by referring to the corresponding figure/table number. 
  • Grammar: Is the English clear and well-written? Are terminology, style, and language adequate? Poorly written English may obscure the scientific merit of the article. 
  • Other criteriainclude the article title, objectives, article structure, methods, technical correctness, keywords, etc. Referees are welcome to suggest additional material for inclusion in the article that will increase its value. They should not hesitate to point out approaches that they think would make the article more useful.

Editors and Reviewers' responsibilities:

Be objective. Editor and reviewer decisions are not affected by the origins of the article, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. If an editor or reviewer cannot judge an article impartially, they should not accept the invitation to review it. If they have any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the article, they should not accept the invitation to review. If this conflict of interest is uncovered after reviewing the article, they should immediately inform the Editor-inChief. If there is an aspect of an article that a reviewer feels they are not qualified to evaluate, they should inform the Editor. Reviews should be conducted objectively and promptly by qualified referees. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in an article or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Provide considerate and useful comments. Reviews should be constructive and courteous, and they should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments. If something is unclear due to the language issues please address this issue. Therefore, the reviewer can recommend English language editing. However, reviewers are not expected to edit/correct the grammar or language in the article. Please restrict review comments directed to the authors to the scientific content. Only accept the invitation if the article matches your area of expertise and if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

Work promptly. Just as a reviewer may wish prompt evaluations of their research, we request they return reviews within the period specified when asked to review the article. If events will prevent a timely review, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request. Therefore, before you commit, make sure you can work promptly and meet the deadline.

Maintain anonymity. The review process is conducted anonymously (the journal never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors). Also, the reviewer should not reveal his or her identity to the authors. The review itself will be anonymously shared only with the author, editors, and possibly with other reviewers.

Maintain confidentiality. The submitted article is privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. If you accept the invitation to review the article, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Reviewers should delete all copies of the article after review and not share the article with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication (unless they are invited to write an editorial or commentary to accompany the article). Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

Know Journals Publication Ethics, Per review policy and Author guidelines. Editors and Reviewers should be aware of the Journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.