Peer Review Process

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

The journal applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all published articles in the field of engineering science. Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for evaluating scholarly merit, improving manuscript quality, and maintaining high ethical and academic standards.

2. Type of Peer Review

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach ensures objectivity and minimizes potential bias.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to assess scope, originality, academic quality, formatting compliance, and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.

At this stage, the editor will also check the article for plagiarism using Turnitin software, evaluating both similarity and AI-generated content reports. Similarity must be less than 20% overall, with no more than 5% from each individual source, and AI-generated content should be less than 30%.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant discipline. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, subject expertise, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge
  • Relevance to the field
  • Clarity of the theoretical and conceptual framework
  • Methodological rigor and appropriateness
  • Quality of analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity, coherence, and academic writing quality
  • Ethical compliance

6. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed and constructive feedback and make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required (revise and resubmit)
  • Reject

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The editorial team evaluates reviewer reports and makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations, manuscript quality, and alignment with the journal’s objectives. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional expert opinions may be sought.

8. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version along with a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Timeline of the Peer Review Process

The journal aims to ensure a timely review process:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review stage: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision and final decision: dependent on the extent of revisions

10. Confidentiality and Anonymity

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished material for personal research. The anonymity of both authors and reviewers is strictly maintained.

11. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest, conduct reviews objectively, and report suspected ethical misconduct in accordance with international publishing ethics standards.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification. Complaints related to the peer review process are handled transparently and fairly by the editorial board.

13. Final Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and proofreading prior to publication. Authors are required to approve the final proofs before publication.