Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for the Reviewers

Article submitted to Engineered Science Publisher journals should be innovative and original work of significance in the areas as described by the scope of the journal.

The Engineered Science Journals operate a single-blind review process, in which the identities of the authors are open to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors. 

We use a wide range of sources to identify potential reviewers, including the editorial board, keyword search (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Scifinder, etc.), personal knowledge, author suggestions, and bibliographic databases. Reviewers’ evaluations play a critical role in deciding whether a paper is to be accepted for publication or not.

Routine and incremental work without significance - however competently researched and reported - should not be recommended for publication. Articles which rely excessively on supplementary information should not be recommended for publication.

All of journals adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (http://publicationethics.org). We strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript for publication are based on the manuscript’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal. 

Please inform the Editor who requested the review before accepting, if there is a conflict of interest (resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers); you are not able to referee with confidence; the work or a significant part of the work has been submitted or published before. 

If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so from the editor. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential. 

Two parts will be available for you to input the comments: COMMENTS TO THE EDITOR and COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR.  Your Comments to the Editor will be submitted to the Handling Editor and the Editor-in-Chief only. These should include any possible conflicts of interest. Comments and constructive criticism of the manuscript should be placed in the Comments to the Author.

Referees have the responsibility to treat the manuscript as confidential. When preparing your report, please:

• Comment on the innovation, originality, significance and scientific reliability of the work;
• Indicate clearly whether the article should be rejected,  revision (major or minor), accepted as is, resubmitted after revisions. This recommendation needs be jusfitied with detailed comments (with references, as appropriate) that will both help the Editor to make a decision on the article and the authors to improve it;
• Are the methods appropriate, scientifically sound, current, and described clearly enough that the work could be repeated by someone else?
• Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained? 
• Are the references cited the most appropriate to support the manuscript? Are citations provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the data in this paper? Are any key citations missing?  Any recommended references by the reviewer to be cited need have a justification;
• Consider the length of the manuscript, relative to the content. Should any portions of the paper should be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted? Some information can be moved to the supporting materials, please advise in your comments.
• Do not include personal name or website in the comments.
• Biased comments or personal attacks are not allowed.

We would greatly appreciate if you could review this paper in the required time. Please let us know if that will not be possible. Thank you very much for your assistance in evaluating this manuscript.