Peer review policy
Science, Engineering and Technology journal operates under a double blind peer review model (anonymity of reviewers and authors is strictly preserved). All submitted manuscripts go through a review process to ensure proper quality of the published papers. If a submission is considered appropriate and within journal scope, a peer-review process is initiated.
Refereeing of manuscripts has two main functions including:
- to provide feedback on manuscripts that guarantees a high-quality publication,
- to provide feedback to authors that may assist them in preparing high-quality manuscripts for submission.
The manuscripts will be reviewed initially by the Editor and later by at least 2 reviewers who are experts/specialists in the respective fields. If necessary the number of reviewers can be increased by editor or editorial board. Manuscript will only be sent to review if the Editor determines that it meets the appropriate quality and relevance requirements. The Editor will identify suitable reviewers and obtain their comments related to scope, type, size, quality, originality, referencing, clarity, and other criteria of the manuscript. Based on comments, if necessary, the manuscripts will be sent to third reviewer for comments. The reviewers' recommendations determine editorial decision, e.g. whether a manuscript will be accepted / rejected or it needs minor / major revisions or submission for second round of review. Majority opinion will prevail. In special cases, the Editor will take the final decision. For manuscripts which require new review round, the editor can invite the same or different reviewers to ensure that the quality of the revised paper is acceptable. Editor reserves the right to reject any submission and to make suggestions and/or modifications before publication.
To provide a high-quality review, SET Journal prepared Paper Review Form. To assure consistency with the directions provided to authors, editor and referees should consult the publication ethics, per review policy and author guidelines. Editors will take all reasonable steps to ensure that peer referees' identities are protected and that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and convenient. Reviewers should check the manuscript carefully to determine whether it is appropriate for publication in the SET journal. Their feedback should be useful to the authors in revising their manuscripts and for the Editor for final decision.
Criteria for manuscript evaluation
Editor and Reviewers should pay attention to several criteria. Main criteria for manuscript evaluation include:
- Scope: All manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor, either individually or in consultation with the Editorial Board member(s), to assess its suitability for the journal in line with the journal’s aims and scope. This is an important step to ensure that the content falls within the scope of the journal in terms of quality and/or impact on policy. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s expected standards are rejected with an explanation of reasons behind a desk-reject decision.
- Originality: is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate and novel? Does the work contain significant additional material to that already published? Has its value been demonstrated? It 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 manuscript has similarities with any other published paper.
- Referencing: has reference been made to the most recent and most appropriate work? Is the present work set in the context of the previous work? Author(s) are responsible for ensuring that the information in each reference is complete and accurate. Bibliography should include an adequate references and recent contributions. References should be used according to required style.
- Content Clarity: is the English clear and well written? Poorly written English may obscure the scientific merit of your paper. Are the ideas expressed clearly and concisely? Are the concepts understandable?
- Conclusions: The evidence provided should justify the conclusions and the conclusions should be compelling enough to deserve rapid publication.
- Other crtiteria include: objectives, manuscript structure, methods, value to readers, technical correctness, etc.
Referees are welcome to suggest additional material for inclusion in the manuscript that will increase its value. They should not hesitate to point out approaches that they think would make the manuscript more useful.
Editors and Reviewers responsibilities:
- Be objective. Editor and reviewer decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. If an editor or reviewer cannot judge a manuscript 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 manuscript, they should not accept the invitation to review. If this conflict of interest is uncovered after reviewing the manuscript, they should immediately inform the Editor-inChief. If there is an aspect of a manuscript 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 a manuscript 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 manuscript. Please restrict review comments directed to the authors to the scientific content.
- 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 manuscript. If events will prevent a timely review, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request.
- 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 authors. The review itself will be anonymously shared only with the author, editors, and possibly with other reviewers.
- Maintain confidentiality. The submitted manuscript is privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should delete all copies of the manuscript after review and not share the manuscript 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 manuscript).
- Know Journals Publication Ethics, Per review policy and Author Guidelinies. Editor and Reviewers should be aware of the Journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.
Useful resources for reviewers: