Peer Review Process

Submission of Paper

The corresponding author should submit the paper to the journal online using our editorial system (OJS) or submit to our email: editor@ijoest.com (We will upload and send author welcome email with credentials) to track the progress of the manuscript.

For further details about the preparation of the files for submission, please browse the Author Guidelines.

To enable speedy handling of the manuscript, during the submission process the author must provide the names and e-mail addresses of at least three potential referees (note that the editor retains the sole right to decide whether or not to use the people suggested). The author may also exclude a limited number of researchers as potential reviewers of the manuscript (maximum three people).

Editorial Office Assessment

The Editorial Office will check whether the composition and format of the paper comply with the Guide for Authors, to ensure it includes the required sections and styles. If the manuscript fails to meet one or more requirements, the Editorial Office will return it to the authors for amendments.

Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and Assignment to an Associate Editor (AE)

The EIC performs a pre-screening and may reject papers upfront and decide not to forward them to the peer review process. This may occur in the case of submission of clearly plagiarized or previously published papers, as well as of papers that fall outside the scope of the Journal, are not innovative or are of low relevance for readers.

The study must meet all ethical requirements as outlined in the Journal’s Publication Ethics.

If the manuscript meets all requirements, the EIC will assign it to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise, who will be responsible for managing the peer review process. Associate Editors may reject manuscripts that they deem highly unlikely to pass peer review.

Invitation to Reviewers and Response

International Journal of Engineering Science Technologies operates a double blind peer review process. The quality of manuscript content is assessed by the AE and a minimum of two additional independent expert reviewers. We adhere to a rigorous peer review process as outlined at A Standard Terminology for Peer Review

The handling AE sends invitations to individuals he/she maintains would be appropriate reviewers. Potential reviewers consider the invitation in light of their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability and are free to accept or decline the invitation. If possible, when declining, they may also suggest alternative reviewers.

As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers is obtained.

Review

The reviewers will rate several aspects of the manuscript, offer specific suggestions for improvement, and make a recommendation with regard to its suitability for publication. They are required to possess specific expertise in the field of the individual submission, have time to produce a report within the deadline established by the editor and to be devoid of any conflict of interest with the Authors or the content of the submission.

They are expected to be balanced and consistently fair in evaluating papers and their reports should be analytical and constructive.

The review is submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject the paper or with a request for revision (major or minor), that should be well substantiated and justified. More information found on Review Guidelines

If major issues are identified on first reading the manuscript, the reviewer may decide to reject the paper without further input.

All information contained in the manuscript and acquired during the review process will be held in the strictest confidence.

Peer Review Procedures

• Use of Author-Recommended Reviewers: Authors may suggest potential reviewers during manuscript submission. However, the editorial team reserves the right to evaluate and select reviewers based on expertise, impartiality, and conflict of interest considerations. Suggested reviewers may be included, but selection remains at the discretion of the editors.
• Masking of Identities: To maintain integrity and fairness, our peer review process follows a Double-Blind peer review process approach (Double-Blind: Identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other)
• Supplementary Material Review: Supplementary materials such as datasets, appendices, and additional figures may undergo peer review if they significantly contribute to the manuscript’s conclusions. However, non-critical materials may be evaluated solely by editors before publication.
• Posting of Reviews with Articles: Peer reviews will not be published alongside accepted articles.
• Signed vs. Anonymous Reviews: Reviews may be anonymous based on the journal's review structure. Anonymous reviews maintain reviewer confidentiality to encourage honest, unbiased feedback.We follow peer review policies in accordance with the guidelines provided by COPE, available at Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Peer Review Exception Policy

• Editorials and Opinion Pieces: Editorials, perspectives, and opinion articles are typically reviewed by the editorial team rather than undergoing formal peer review. These articles reflect expert viewpoints or institutional stances and do not require validation through peer review.
• Letters and Commentaries: Short-form communications, such as letters to the editor or commentaries responding to previously published work, may be assessed internally without external peer review. These contributions aim to foster scholarly dialogue rather than present original research.
• Conference Proceedings and Abstracts: Manuscripts derived from conference presentations or abstracts may be published based on editorial discretion. While some may undergo review, others may be included without peer review, depending on their nature and purpose.
• News and Announcements: Updates, industry news, and institutional announcements are generally exempt from peer review, as their primary function is to inform rather than contribute new research findings.
• Book Reviews and Product Evaluations: Reviews of books, software, or scientific tools are often evaluated by the editorial team and do not require peer review, as they focus on subjective analysis rather than empirical research.
• Corrections and Retractions: Errata, corrigenda, and retraction notices follow an internal review process to ensure accuracy and compliance with publishing standards but do not undergo external peer review.
• Editorial Board-Commissioned Articles: Some invited articles, including expert analyses or commentaries commissioned by the editorial board, may be exempt from standard peer review if deemed authoritative by the journal.
Preprint and Rapid Communication Articles: Preprints or rapid communications designed for immediate dissemination may undergo minimal review to facilitate faster publication. These articles often serve as preliminary reports ahead of formal peer-reviewed versions.

AE evaluates the Reviews and makes a Decision

The handling AE considers all reviews received before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ considerably, the AE may invite additional reviewers in order to obtain further opinions before making a decision. The key parameters to be applied in the final evaluation of all types of submissions are:

• Innovation (Is the manuscript original? Does it provide new evidence or ideas capable of furthering knowledge in the given social economic context?)
• Quality (clarity, logic, English/Hindi language and grammar, thoroughness, layout etc.)
• Relevance (interest to readers, not too specific, applicability, importance of the topic, impact on social life, economy, scientific community, etc.)

Four possible decisions may therefore be reached:

• Accept – the manuscript satisfies all publication parameters and is worthy of publication
• Minor/Major Revisions – further revision of the manuscript is required in order to satisfy all parameters (a deadline for submission of the revised version is set)
• Reject and Resubmission Suggested – the paper fails to satisfy key parameters and substantial revision of the manuscript is required to address its shortcomings (no deadlines are set)
• Reject – the paper fails to satisfy key parameters and it is highly unlikely that further work can address its shortcomings.

Confirmation of the Decision and Communication to the Authors

All decisions are confirmed by the EIC prior to notification.

The Editorial Office sends a decision email to the corresponding author including any relevant reviewer comments. All comments and related files will be provided in an anonymised form.

Final Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. Reviewers will receive an email informing them of the outcome of their review. International Journal of Engineering Science Technologies will make every effort to ensure articles are published rapidly and accurately: the corresponding author will receive an e-mail with a link to the online proofing system (Galley Proof), and he/she should submit all corrections within 48 hours. Following implementation of the corrections by the authors, the article is published online under the licence:

This work is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

More details on Correction and Retention Found on Correction/Retention Policy.

An introduction to the review process.

In this video, we demonstrate the steps for reviewers or referees to follow and understand our editorial workflow system. This video is one of journal under Granthaalayah Publications and Printers.