Peer Review Policy

Engineering and Technology International Journal (EATIJ) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published articles through a rigorous and transparent peer-review process.

All research articles submitted to EATIJ undergo an initial editorial assessment and, if considered suitable, are evaluated by independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

The peer-review process is intended to assess the originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, validity of the findings, clarity of presentation, and relevance of each manuscript to the journal's focus and scope.

 

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is examined by the editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's basic requirements.

The initial assessment includes:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
• Compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript format.
• Adequacy of the research objectives and scientific contribution.
• Completeness of the manuscript and supporting information.
• Preliminary assessment of research integrity and ethical compliance.
• Similarity screening using Turnitin in accordance with the journal's plagiarism policy.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements or are clearly outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review. Manuscripts requiring administrative or formatting corrections may be returned to the authors before further assessment.

 

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant academic qualifications and subject-matter expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their research experience, publication record, and familiarity with the manuscript's topic or methodology. The editorial team seeks to ensure that reviewers can provide independent, objective, and constructive assessments.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

 

Review Model

EATIJ should clearly identify and consistently apply its actual peer-review model.

If the journal uses a double-blind peer-review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file where necessary, while reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the review assignment.

The editorial team is responsible for protecting the identities of authors and reviewers in accordance with the journal's stated review policy.

 

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

1. Originality and novelty: The extent to which the manuscript provides an original contribution to engineering, information technology, or applied technological research.
2. Relevance: The suitability of the manuscript for the journal's focus and scope.
3. Research methodology: The appropriateness, clarity, and rigor of the methods used.
4. Results and analysis: The validity, accuracy, and adequacy of the results and their interpretation.
5. Scientific contribution: The significance of the findings for knowledge development or practical applications.
6. Literature review: The relevance, quality, and adequacy of the cited literature.
7. Presentation and structure: The clarity of the writing, organization, figures, tables, and technical explanations.
8. References and research integrity: The adequacy of citations and compliance with scholarly and ethical standards.

Reviewers should provide clear comments and constructive recommendations that help the editor make an informed decision and assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

 

Review Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revisions, subject to final editorial checks.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements before it can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or has fundamental weaknesses that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature of the required changes.

The final decision rests with the responsible editor, taking into account the review reports, the manuscript's scientific merit, and the journal's publication standards.

 

Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

When an author disagrees with a recommendation, the response should provide a clear and evidence-based explanation. The editor may request further revisions, additional review, or clarification before making a final decision.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period, without prior approval for an extension, may result in the manuscript being closed or treated as withdrawn.

 

Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, professional, or research advantage.

Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based, and respectful comments. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations are inappropriate.

Editors must also preserve the confidentiality of reviewer reports and related editorial communications, except where disclosure is authorized or required by applicable policies.

 

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could influence the peer-review process.

Reviewers who identify a potential conflict of interest must notify the editor and decline the assignment when necessary. Editors must reassign manuscripts when their own impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

 

Review Timeline

EATIJ aims to process manuscripts as efficiently as possible while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for revisions, and the time required for editorial assessment.

Authors will be informed of significant changes in manuscript status through the journal's submission system or official editorial communication channels.

 

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can provide substantive grounds, such as a significant factual error in the review, a demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a procedural irregularity.

Appeals must be submitted to the editorial office with a clear explanation and relevant supporting evidence. The journal will assess appeals impartially and may seek an independent opinion where appropriate.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, or publication ethics will be handled in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

 

Final Publication Decision

Acceptance for publication is granted only after the manuscript has satisfied the journal's editorial requirements and completed the necessary review and revision stages.

Accepted manuscripts may undergo copyediting, language editing, formatting, and final proof correction before publication. These processes do not replace peer review or change the requirement for editorial approval.

EATIJ is committed to ensuring that publication decisions are based on scholarly merit, research integrity, and relevance to the journal's scope rather than personal, institutional, or commercial considerations.