Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Science, Engineering and Technology journal operates under a double-blind peer review model. 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 editorial and peer review process involves several essential roles:

Editor-in-Chief provides overall editorial oversight, ensures the integrity of the peer review process, and assigns each submitted article to an appropriate Handling Editor (also referred to simply as the Editor). Depending on the topic and specific circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a suitable member of the Editorial Team to serve as the Handling Editor or may choose to assume this role personally. The Editor-in-Chief may also formally authorize the Deputy Editor-in-Chief to perform any of these responsibilities when necessary, ensuring continuity and efficiency in the editorial workflow.
Deputy Editor-in-Chief supports the Editor-in-Chief in overseeing the editorial and peer review process. When formally authorized, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief may perform the duties of the Editor-in-Chief, including assigning handling editors and making editorial decisions, ensuring continuity and efficiency of the editorial workflow.
Handling Editor (also referred as the Editor) is a designated member of the Editorial Team responsible for managing the editorial workflow for an individual article. This includes overseeing the peer review process, selecting suitable reviewers, evaluating their recommendations, and making editorial decisions. Editors are committed to ensuring that reviewers'and authors'identities are protected and that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and convenient.
Guest Editors may be appointed for special issues under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief and are required to follow the same peer-review and editorial standards as regular issues. While Guest Editors may oversee the peer review process and provide recommendations regarding the acceptance or rejection of submissions within a Special Issue, the final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor formally appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers are independent experts who provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted articles to support editorial decisions and improve the quality of the publication. The list of reviewers who have completed one or more reviews for the journal can be viewed at the following link: List of Reviewers
Authors are responsible for submitting original and ethically conducted research and for responding to reviewer and editor feedback in a professional and timely manner.

Each of these roles is critical in maintaining the integrity, transparency, and academic quality of the journal’s publishing process. The journal’s Publication Ethics policy outlines the responsibilities and ethical obligations of editors, reviewers, and authors.

The review process begins only if the submission aligns with the journal's scope and meets specific quality criteria and technical requirements.

Submissions that pass the initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief are assigned to an appropriate member of the Editorial Team (Handling Editor) with relevant expertise in the subject area of the article. Depending on the topic and specific circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a suitable member of the Editorial Team to serve as the Handling Editor or may choose to assume this role personally. When assigning a Handling Editor, priority is given to editors whose academic background and research interests best match the topic of the manuscript, while also considering availability and potential conflicts of interest.

The Handling Editor is responsible for managing the editorial workflow, including overseeing the assessment of the manuscript and selecting qualified reviewers. Each submission is subsequently evaluated by the Handling Editor to assess its relevance and originality. Based on the initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief and the preliminary assessment by the assigned Handling Editor, the first decision is issued. This initial editorial decision may result in desk rejection or in the initiation of the external peer review process.

Desk rejection may occur either during the initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or following the preliminary assessment by the assigned Handling Editor; in all cases, this takes place prior to the initiation of external peer review.

If the manuscript meets the required criteria, the Handling Editor initiates a double-blind peer review process involving at least two independent experts in the relevant field. When appropriate, additional reviewers may be invited to ensure a comprehensive and balanced evaluation. The editors aim to engage qualified, publishing-active reviewers with relevant expertise who can provide timely and thorough evaluations. Members of the Editorial Team may also serve as reviewers, provided that strict role separation is maintained; an individual may not act simultaneously as both Handling Editor and Reviewer for the same submission.

By upholding scientific rigor, editorial integrity, and ethical standards, the Handling Editor plays a central role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and academic reputation of the journal while fostering a fair, respectful, and constructive environment for authors and reviewers.

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)

E) Desk Reject: If the article does not meet the journal's formal or thematic requirements, the Editor-in- Chief may issue an early rejection, without initiating the external peer review process.

The majority opinion should generally guide the decision-making process. Additionally, the Handling Editor reserves the right to request a second round of review for certain articles. In such instances, the Handling 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 Handling 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 developedan optional Peer Review Form. This form can be utilized by both the Editor and reviewers during the review process and may be uploaded along with their comments. Although optional, the use of the Review Form is encouraged to ensure consistent and structured feedback.

Following final acceptance, the manuscript undergoes professional copyediting, layout preparation, and final proof approval by the authors prior to publication, ensuring full compliance with the journal’s quality and style standards.

Note. All articles submitted to the Special Issue are subject to the same Peer Review Policy and Publication Ethics guidelines as regular submissions. Guest Editors may be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief to coordinate Special Issues. While they oversee the peer review process and make recommendations, final editorial decisions remain with the Editor-in-Chief or an Editor appointed by the Editor-in-Chief, ensuring consistent editorial standards and ethical compliance.

Anonymity and double-blind review

To ensure the integrity of the double-blind peer review process, the journal requires that the identities of authors and reviewers remain unknown to each other throughout the review procedure. Authors are responsible for submitting fully anonymized manuscripts by removing names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying references, and any personal information embedded in the manuscript text or file properties. During the initial editorial screening, editors verify compliance with these requirements, while reviewers are expected to preserve anonymity in all review reports and communications. Articles that do not meet anonymization standards may be returned to authors for correction prior to the initiation of peer review.

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 acronyms are 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.

Reviewers are advised not to rely on generative AI tools when evaluating submissions and should ensure that all assessments are based on their own expert judgment.

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.

Reviewer Benefits:

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 Team Membership: Qualified reviewers with a strong academic record may apply for Editorial Team membership after completing multiple reviews.
APC Discount: Reviewers who complete three high-quality reviews qualify for a 50% APC discount on one article where they are an author, while five high-quality reviews qualify for a full 100% APC discount. For articles 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