Review Guidelines

Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review. This Journal adheres COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication. Please read review confidentiality policy before undertaking a review.

The review process is conducted anonymously. Journal of Engineering & Processing Management never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board.

Journal of Engineering & Processing Management operates a double-blind review process for all submissions. Reviewers must treat the submissions as confidential and should not show them or discuss with the others before publication.Your review must contain the classification of submission into one of the mentioned submission types, by selecting an appropriate option within the Review Form. 

Reviewers need to register with the Journal prior to initiating a peer-review process or, if already registered, can simply log in and begin. If you have any questions about how to review a submission, send your questions to the Editor. In addition to filling out the classification and ranking information in the Review Form, you must provide comments to the Authors and optionally to the Editor. In many cases, the rankings from different reviewers are at different ends of the spectrum and the comments are needed to reconcile the differences.

If you can provide comments back to the authors on relevant references that they should have reviewed or at least cited, please include this information in your comments to the authors.If you review a submission that is excessively similar to previously published submissions (or you have reason to believe that the submission has previously been published), please note this in your comments to the Editor.

We appreciate providing confidential comments to editors for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

  • Recommending Acceptance - If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'.

  • Recommending Revision - Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

  • Recommending Rejection - If recommending rejection or a major revision, state this clearly in your review. Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

  • Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research

  • Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer

  • Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

In order to get the submissions published on time, we need your reviews done on specified time. 

When to decline 

  • Unfortunately, a good review takes many hours to prepare and it must compete with other obligations. Therefore, you can (and should) decline to review a paper if you cannot devote the necessary time before the deadline. But tell the editor immediately so that he can find a substitute referee. 

  • Upon inspection of the paper, you may realize that you are not competent to review the paper due to a mismatch between your background and/or interests. Once again, you should notify the Editor immediately.

  • When you decline to review a paper, the editor will be particularly gratified if you suggest an alternate referee, with the relevant e-mail address, please coordinate this with the Editor.

Finally, thank you for being a reviewer and dedicating your time and expertise to Journal of Engineering & Processing Management.