Editorial Procedures and Peer Review Process

Editorial Procedures 

All manuscripts received by the journal will be reviewed by the Editor to ensure they have been prepared in accordance with the journal's ethical policies and standards. Manuscripts that do not comply with the ethical rules of the journal or meet the journal standards will be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief prior to peer review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for correction and resubmission. The Editor-in-Chief may seek input from the journal's associate editors to ascertain whether the article aligns with the journal's scope and meets scientific standards. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable may be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief without undergoing peer review. For articles that meet the criteria, the Editor-in-Chief or designated subject editors will initiate the peer review process.

Submissions should be prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines. The manuscript may be returned to authors without a scientific assessment if they do not meet all submission requirements, if they are not in the correct format, or cannot be downloaded reliably.

Submissions must represent the original and independent work of the authors. Each new submission is assessed by Principal Editor to determine whether it falls within the general remit of the Engineering Perspective. We will reject a manuscript without review if it contains insufficient content; it is incorrectly formatted; it is poorly presented and unclear. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment will be handled by Editor-inChief or Subject Editor to oversee the review process for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation.

Peer Review Process

Once a manuscript has been deemed suitable following the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. A single-blind review is applied, whereby the authors' identities are known to the reviewers. Journal subject editors, members of the editorial board, and guest editors with relevant expertise may be appointed as reviewers. Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. It is a requirement that reviewers have not published with any of the co-authors in the past three years and must not work or collaborate with any institution of the co-authors of the currently submitted article.

Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer. All manuscripts are subject to peer review. Authors can expect a decision, or an explanation for any delays, within two months of receipt. Should a revision be requested, the corresponding author is required to submit the revised manuscript within four weeks. Referees may choose to re-review the revised article or may decide that no further review is necessary (usually in cases of minor revision requests). The editor will decide whether the article will be sent back to the reviewer after revision by examining the corrections made by the authors. In the event of major revision requests, the editor must send the corrected version of the article back to the relevant referee. The final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or Subject Editors based on the information gained through the peer-review process.

We ensure that the reviewed manuscript is treated confidentially prior to being published, as explained in publication ethics.

There are four types of editorial decisions during the peer review process, which are "Reject", "Minor Revision", "Major Revision" and "Accept".

Reject: Following a peer review, the paper has been deemed unacceptable for publication in Engineering Perspective and cannot be resubmitted.

Major Revision: The submitted version of the paper does not meet the required standards and requires significant revisions. However, the work demonstrates clear potential, and Engineering Perspective is willing to consider a new version. Authors are invited to submit a revised paper as a new proposal. Until the editors are satisfied that the paper aligns with the scope and standards of Engineering Perspective, concerns regarding its suitability for publication will remain. The resubmitted manuscript will be reviewed by the original associate editor if possible.

Minor Revision: The paper requires amendments before a final decision can be made. The authors are required to modify their manuscript in accordance with the feedback provided by the referees and editors and to submit a revised version for consideration within two weeks of receiving the decision letter. Please provide a point-by-point explanation of how the comments have been addressed with the revised version of the paper. Please note that revisions may undergo further peer review and that papers may undergo more than one round of revision. If the authors do not revise their papers to the satisfaction of the editors, the paper may still be declined for publication in Engineering Perspective.

Accept: The paper has been accepted for publication, subject to the conditions that need to be addressed in producing a final version of the manuscript. These may include sub-editing changes and a minor amendment to ensure the paper fully matches our criteria. Once the editorial office has carried out a final check, acceptance will be confirmed and the paper will be forwarded to the publishers for publication.

Proof Process

The page proofs will be sent to the corresponding author for final checking. Please note that any corrections to the proofs must be limited to printer's errors. Any other changes to the text, equations or grammar may be subject to additional charges. We kindly request that proofs be returned to the editors within three days of receipt to minimise the risk of the author's contribution having to be held over to a later issue. Please be aware that the editors do not accept responsibility for the correctness of published content. It is the author's responsibility to check the content at the proof stage.