ISSN (Online): 2812-9709
The submitted manuscripts are subject to a peer review process. The purpose of peer review is to assist the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with the author it may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
The journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that all of the reviewers of a manuscript remain anonymous to the authors before, during and after the evaluation process and the authors remain anonymous to reviewers until the end of the review procedure.
The Editor-in-Chief will initially assess all contributions for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to assess the paper’s scientific quality. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the last decision about the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is last.
The recommendation to reviewers is to complete the review within 15 days. If the reviewers request a longer period, they can be granted, but not longer than 30 days.
The choice of reviewers is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors’ own institution and they should not have joint publications with any of the authors.
Authors may also suggest potential reviewers familiar with their paper’s technical aspects. These suggestions should be impartial.
In the main review phase, the Editor-in-Chief sends submitted manuscripts to reviewers (Experts) in the field. In the final section of the evaluation form, the reviewers must include observations and suggestions aimed at improving the submitted manuscript. Completed reviews are sent to the authors, without mentioning the names of the reviewers.
All of the reviewers of a manuscript act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor-in-Chief may assign additional reviewers.
During the review process, the Editor-in-Chief may require authors to provide additional information (including raw data) if they are necessary for the evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript. These materials shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief without delay.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or the quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.
Members of the Editorial Board/Guest Editors are permitted to submit their own papers to the Advanced Engineering Letters. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review.