ISSN (Online): 2812-9709
Instructions for Reviewers
Reviewers should start by checking if there is any conflict of interest and promptly notify the Editor in Chief.
Each received article is forwarded to two independent reviewers – double-blind review (reviewers do not know who is the author of the work; the author does not know who are the reviewers of his work). We insist on anonymity because we believe that this procedure will contribute to more independent, more critical and better examination papers.
Reviewers are encouraged to review the article within 15 days. If the Reviewers request a longer period, they can be granted, but not longer than 30 days. If the reviewers are unable to meet the deadlines, they are obliged to inform the Editor-in-Chief without delay. The reviewer does not have the rights to the content of the paper, the other, or that data from work that benefits are reviewed for any purpose. See the Basic Principles for Reviewers subsection for more details.
Reviewers have an obligation to care about ethical issues. If the paper is plagiarized, or the same title is published in another journal or anthology, they are obliged to immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief. In order to apply the highest standards in ethical publishing, Advanced Engineering Letters advises reviewers to base their work on the Committee for Publishing Ethics COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
The Editor-In-Chief delivers the review form, together with the paper, to the reviewer. At the beginning of the reviewer form, the reviewer states his name, title, and the full name of the institution where he or she works, place and date of peer review. These data are confidential, remain with editorial boards and is not sent to the author of the work, in addition to the required corrections, suggestions and complaints if any.
What if the Reviewer Can’t Do the Review?
If, for any reason, the assigned reviewer is unable to review the paper, he should immediately inform the editor-in-chief that he cannot perform the review. If the reviewer is not able to complete his work report within the agreed deadline, you should inform the editor-in-chief as soon as possible so that the evaluation process is not delayed.
Investigate the Journal’s Content
The reviewer should pay attention to the manuscript’s originality, relevance, presentation and importance. Reviewers should see the Instructions for Authors section to determine whether a manuscript meets the journal submission criteria. This will help the Reviewers decide whether the work being reviewed is suitable.
In the review form that the reviewer receives, he should write his opinion – a report on quantitative work.
How to Write a Review Report?
Reviewers are required to answer all review questions on the report form. They are also asked to comment on the quality of the papers. Reports do not necessarily agree with the views of the authors. Reviewers can make suggestions so that authors can improve the manuscript’s clarity, conciseness, and overall quality. See the Peer Review Process subsection for more details.
After the reviewers have read and rated the manuscript, they need to need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief regarding publication. The decision to be made must be one of the following:
- Accept the manuscript without further revision – if the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Accept after revision – if the manuscript will be ready for publication after light revisions.
- Ask the author(s) to resubmit – the article needs a lot of changes and need to submit the manuscript again.
- Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal.
When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, the author(s) are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments to be submitted by reviewers.
If possible, the revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.