Peer-Review Policy
1. Review Policy
The Journal of Engineering Research and Reviews (JERR) employs a double-blind peer review process for manuscripts that pass the journal's initial editorial assessment.
The peer review process is designed to provide an objective, fair, confidential, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts and to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance.
2. Peer-Review Assignment
2.1. Initial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial and technical assessment to determine whether it is suitable for external peer review.
The assessment may include consideration of the manuscript's scope, originality, scientific quality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, adherence to the journal's Instructions for Authors, and potential plagiarism or other publication-related concerns.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before external peer review.
2.2. Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.
JERR follows a double-blind peer review model:
Reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors.
Authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.
Authors should therefore ensure that their manuscript and supplementary files do not unnecessarily disclose their identities or affiliations where such information is not required for the review process.
The journal may appoint additional reviewers when necessary, including when reviewer recommendations substantially conflict or when specialist expertise is required.
2.3. Confidentiality of Peer Review
Manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in manuscripts under review.
Peer-review reports and related correspondence are treated as confidential and are shared with the authors through the journal's editorial system at the discretion of the editor.
Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer review model.
3. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities
Reviewers are selected based on their academic or professional expertise and their ability to provide an independent and objective assessment of the manuscript.
Reviewers are expected to:
evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively;
assess the scientific quality, originality, methodology, results, interpretation, and significance of the work;
identify important weaknesses or methodological concerns;
identify relevant published work that should be considered or cited where appropriate;
maintain confidentiality throughout the review process;
disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest;
decline the review if they lack the appropriate expertise or cannot provide an impartial assessment; and
complete their review within the requested timeframe whenever possible.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.
4. Reviewer Timeframe
Reviewers are normally requested to complete their assessments within 28 days of accepting the review invitation.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe, the journal may contact the reviewer regarding the expected completion date or withdraw the invitation and appoint an alternative reviewer.
The journal may invite additional or replacement reviewers when necessary to maintain an efficient and fair review process.
The 28-day period is a target for reviewers and does not constitute a guarantee of a fixed review duration.
5. Communication with the Corresponding Author
The corresponding author is notified through the journal's editorial system when the peer-review process has progressed to a stage at which a decision or reviewer feedback can be communicated.
After receiving and evaluating the reviewers' reports, the handling editor communicates the editorial decision and relevant reviewer comments to the corresponding author.
The editor may provide additional editorial comments or instructions where necessary.
Reviewer comments may be edited or withheld in whole or in part when they contain inappropriate, offensive, confidential, or otherwise unsuitable material.
6. Editorial Decisions
Following editorial assessment and peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor with appropriate authority.
Editorial decisions are based on the overall scientific and scholarly assessment of the manuscript, including the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the revisions where applicable, and the editor's independent evaluation.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.
7. Revision of Manuscripts
When revisions are requested, the corresponding author should submit:
a revised version of the manuscript; and
a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed.
Authors are normally expected to submit a revised manuscript within three weeks for minor or major revisions.
If additional time is required because of the nature of the requested revisions or other reasonable circumstances, authors should contact the editorial office before the deadline to request an extension.
Failure to submit a revision within the requested timeframe, without prior communication with the editorial office, may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or closed. Authors may contact the editorial office if they wish to request reconsideration or further instructions.
8. Review of Revised Manuscripts
When appropriate, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for reassessment.
The editor may also decide that a revised manuscript can be evaluated editorially without returning it to the reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Additional rounds of revision or peer review may be requested when necessary to resolve substantive scientific or editorial concerns.
9. Acceptance and Publication
Acceptance of a manuscript occurs only after the editorial process has been completed satisfactorily.
Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the journal's production and publication procedures, including copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and final publication.
Publication is not determined solely by the recommendation of an individual reviewer.
10. Expected Peer-Review Timeline
JERR aims to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of the editorial process.
Under normal circumstances, manuscripts may reach an initial final decision within approximately 6–8 weeks when reviewers are available and the manuscript does not require extensive revision or additional assessment.
This timeframe is an approximate target rather than a guarantee. Actual processing times may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, the need to identify replacement reviewers, the number of revision rounds, and other editorial considerations.
11. Editorial Independence
The peer-review process is conducted independently of commercial considerations.
The ability or willingness of an author to pay any applicable publication charge does not influence the peer-review process or editorial decision.
Editors and reviewers are expected to manage conflicts of interest and maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the review process.
12. Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or conflict of interest materially affected the decision.
Appeals should provide a clear and reasoned explanation addressing the specific grounds for the appeal.
Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be overturned.
