Double-Blind Peer-Review Policies

The Emerging Technologies and Engineering Journal (ETEJ) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to safeguard fairness, quality, and integrity in scholarly publishing. Under this policy, authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. Double-blind peer review applies to research articles and review articles; non-research content (if published) may be internally reviewed.

Peer Review Workflow (Step-by-Step)

  1. Initial Technical Check (1–3 days)
    The editorial office checks submission completeness, formatting, anonymization compliance, ethical statements, and similarity screening.
  2. Desk Screening (3–7 days)
    The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor evaluates fit to the journal’s aims and scope, novelty, methodological clarity, and minimum quality standards. Submissions may be desk rejected at this stage without external review.
  3. Reviewer Invitation
    ETEJ normally assigns a minimum of two independent reviewers based on subject expertise and publication record. Reviewers are selected to ensure independence; reviewers with conflicts (e.g., same institution, recent collaboration, or personal/financial relationships) are not assigned.
  4. Double-Blind Review
    Reviewer and author identities are concealed. Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript and a separate title page file. Submissions containing identifying information in the manuscript text or file metadata may be returned for correction or desk rejected.
  5. Editorial Decision
    Decisions may include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject, or Reject & Resubmit.
  6. Revision Handling
    Authors must provide (i) a tracked-changes manuscript (or highlighted revisions), and (ii) a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments. ETEJ may limit revision rounds. Manuscripts requiring extensive rewriting or fundamentally new experiments/analyses may be rejected or invited for resubmission as a new submission.
  7. Final Decision
    The editor makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and the editor’s independent assessment of scope fit, novelty, rigor, clarity, and ethical compliance. The editor’s decision is final.
  8. Post-Acceptance Checks
    Accepted papers undergo copyediting and production checks, including metadata validation, DOI registration, and final PDF quality control prior to publication. Accepted manuscripts may be published online ahead of issue assignment as Articles in Press (Online First).

Reviewer Number and Decision Rules

  • ETEJ uses a minimum of two external reviewers for research and review articles.
  • If reports conflict substantially, the editor may invite a third reviewer or make an editorial decision with documented justification.

Turnaround Targets (Targets)

  • Initial screening decision: within 7–10 days
  • First peer-review decision: within 4–6 weeks
  • Revised manuscript decision: within 2–4 weeks

Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

  • Editors and reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest (financial, professional, personal, or institutional). Reviewers with conflicts are not assigned.
  • All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential and must not be shared or used for personal advantage.
  • Authors must disclose conflicts of interest in a dedicated statement in the manuscript.

Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal decisions within 14 days of receiving the decision letter.
  • Appeals must be evidence-based and address the decision rationale and reviewer/editor comments.
  • Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent senior editor. Appeals are considered only when there is evidence of factual error, bias, or procedural irregularity.

Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

  • All submissions are screened for similarity before peer review. Similarity scores are interpreted case-by-case (e.g., references, methods, and legitimate quotations).
  • Submissions may be rejected for suspected plagiarism, redundant/duplicate publication, or manipulated citations regardless of similarity percentage.