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:
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.