Guide For Reviewers
The publication process relies on the expertise of peer reviewers. Their assessments are crucial in determining the quality of submissions and ensuring that only those meeting our standards are published. We are deeply thankful for their dedication and the significant time and effort they dedicate. They must adhere to the guidelines.
Scope of the Journal
The journal is a valuable resource for academics, researchers, and professionals who want to stay updated on the latest developments in engineering, non-health applied sciences, and computer science.
Double-Blind
The journal follows a double-masked peer review process in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential. To ensure fairness, reviewers selected for this process are not affiliated with the same institution or country as the contributing authors.
Conflict of Interest
Conflicts of interest can occur during the review and publication process when a participant has affiliations that could unfairly influence their evaluation, regardless of the actual impact on their decision-making. Reviewers should disclose any conflicts that could bias their manuscript assessment and, if necessary, refrain from evaluating specific manuscripts.
Confidentiality
Reviewers play a crucial role in upholding the integrity of the peer review process by treating the manuscripts they evaluate as confidential documents. They must adhere to strict ethical standards and avoid exploiting unpublished information from these manuscripts for personal gain. Additionally, it is considered unethical and a breach of the journal's policies to share, discuss with colleagues, or distribute the content that has been reviewed. Reviewers should refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for comprehensive standards, accessible at: (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
Reviewer Responsibilities
Timeliness
We usually ask reviewers to submit their evaluations within two weeks, but extensions are available. If you cannot meet the deadline, please let the editorial office know when you're invited to review. Also, if you cannot conduct the review, we would appreciate it if you could suggest an alternative reviewer with the necessary qualifications.
Manuscript Evaluation
Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating the scientific quality of manuscripts. Their feedback should be clear, logical, and respectful, aimed at facilitating improvements to the manuscript.
A checklist should be given to the reviewers and ask them to consider the following items:
Originality
Evaluate whether the document introduces novel information or restates findings that have already been published.
Importance
Determine the manuscript's relevance to the journal's broad readership, alignment with the journal's focus, and contribution to advancing current knowledge.
Scientific Interest
Evaluate if the manuscript uses appropriate methods, design, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and includes current references.
Language and Length
Please review the manuscript for clarity, coherence, and appropriate terminology.
Figures and Tables
Consider the included figures and tables' necessity, utility, presentation, and quality.
Ethical Concerns
Identify any ethical issues related to the research presented in the manuscript.
The journal does not offer monetary compensation to reviewers. The authors and the journal are deeply thankful for the reviewers' voluntary contributions and the time dedicated to assessing manuscripts. Reviewing is deemed a fundamental component of the academic and research process, and we strive to recognize the efforts of our reviewers whenever possible.
