PEER REVIEW AND PROCEDURE 

SciEnggJ is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and integrity in the publication of scientific and engineering research. Central to this commitment is our peer review process, which ensures the rigorous evaluation of submitted manuscripts to uphold the credibility and validity of the scholarly literature. This document outlines our peer review and procedure policy to provide transparency and guidance to authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the publication process.

• Peer Review Process

• Guidelines for Reviewers

• Author Responsibilities

• Confidentiality and Anonymity

• Appeals and Complaints

Peer Review Process

Initial Screening:
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Co-Editors to assess their suitability for publication in SciEnggJ. This screening considers factors such as adherence to journal guidelines, originality, and relevance to the scope of the journal. Once the Co-Editors deem the manuscript acceptable, they either choose from SciEnggJ’s Editorial Board or any expert who has demonstrated editorial management leadership. 

Assignment of Reviewers:
Submissions passing the initial screening are assigned to appropriate subject matter experts for peer review by the Co-Editors. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, objectivity, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or content of the manuscript. SciEnggJ encourages the assigned Editor-in-Charge (EIC) of manuscripts to first select and invite members of PAASE’s Research Expertise Clusters. EICs may also invite non-PAASE members to serve as reviewers.

Peer Review:
Reviewers shall provide comments through ScholarOne’s built-in Reviewer Module. Through double-blind review methodology, reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript for scientific accuracy, methodological rigor, significance of findings, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical standards. They provide constructive feedback to the authors and recommendations to the EIC regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

Editorial Decision:
After receiving all the reviews, it is the EIC's responsibility to collate all comments by the reviewers. The EIC may decide to accept the manuscript and inform the Corresponding Author (CA) if no revisions are needed, request the CA to respond point-by-point if minor and major revisions are needed, or reject the manuscript should it be deemed inappropriate for publication.

The CAs must submit their revised manuscript and the point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ queries within 7 days for manuscripts requiring Minor Revisions. For manuscript requiring Major Revisions, the CAs are given 14 days to comply.

After revisions are incorporated, the EIC may decide to reject or accept the manuscript for publication. The EIC may then inform the CA of the final decision.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively, impartially, and confidentially, focusing on the scientific and scholarly content of the manuscript.

They should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may bias their assessment of the manuscript and decline to review if such conflicts exist.

They must provide detailed, constructive, and respectful feedback to help authors improve the quality of their work.

Reviewers should adhere to agreed-upon timelines for completing their reviews and promptly notify the Editorial Team if they are unable to fulfill their obligations.

Author Responsibilities

Authors should ensure that their submissions comply with journal guidelines and adhere to ethical standards for research conduct and reporting.

They should provide accurate and complete information, including data, methods, and references, to support their findings.

They must respond promptly and professionally to reviewer comments and editorial requests for revisions or additional information.

Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest or funding sources that may influence the interpretation or presentation of their research.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

SciEnggJ upholds the confidentiality of the peer review process and protects the anonymity of reviewers and authors.

Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors, and authors' identities are concealed from reviewers to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may appeal by providing a detailed rationale and supporting evidence to the Editorial Team. The journal will consider appeals objectively and may seek additional input from independent experts. Authors with concerns about the conduct of the peer review process should contact the Editor-in-Charge or Editorial Team to resolve any issues promptly and fairly.