Editorial Procedures and Peer Review Process

Editorial Procedures 

All manuscripts received by the journal will be checked by the Editor to determine whether they have been prepared properly and comply with the journal's ethical policies. 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 before peer review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for correction and resubmission. The Editor-in-Chief may consult the journal's associate editors to determine whether the article fits within the scope of the journal and is scientifically appropriate. Manuscripts that are found unsuitable may be rejected by the editor-in-chief without being evaluated by the reviewer. For the articles that meet the required criteria, the peer review evaluation process is initiated by the Editor-in-Chief or the assistant editors to be assigned by the editor-in-chief.

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 Principal Editor or Associate Editor to oversee the review process for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation.

Peer Review Process

Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review. A single-blind review is applied, where authors' identities are known to reviewers. Journal assistant editors, members of the editorial board, and guest editors who have expertise in the relevant field may be appointed as reviewer. Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. Reviewers must not have 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 and authors can expect a decision, or an explanation for the delay, within 2 months of receipt. If a revision is invited, the corresponding author should submit the revised manuscript within 4 weeks. Referees may want to re-review the revised article or may not see the need to see the revised article (usually in cases of minor revision requests). The editor decides whether the article will be sent back to the reviewer after revision by examining the corrections made by the authors. In case of major revision requests, the editor must send the corrected version of the article back to the relevant referee. The final decision is taken by Principal 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 peer review, the paper is judged not to be acceptable for publication in Engineering Perspective and resubmission is not possible.

Major Revision: The submitted version of the paper is not acceptable and requires major revision, but there is clear potential in the work, and Engineering Perspective is prepared to consider a new version. Authors are offered the opportunity to resubmit their paper as a new submission. Concerns will remain regarding the suitability of the paper for publication until the editors are convinced by the authors that their paper fits the scope and standards of Engineering Perspective. The resubmitted manuscript will be returned to the original associate editor if at all possible.

Minor Revision: The paper requires changes before a final decision can be made. Authors are asked to modify their manuscript in light of comments received from referees and editors and to submit a new version for consideration within 2 weeks of receiving the decision letter. A point-by-point explanation of how comments have been addressed must be supplied with the revised version of the paper. Revisions may undergo further peer review and 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 can still be declined from publication in Engineering Perspective.

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

Proof Process

Page proofs will be sent to the corresponding author for final checking. Corrections to the proofs must be restricted to printer’s errors: any other changes to the text, in equations or grammar, may be charged to the author. Proofs should be returned to the editors within three days of receipt to minimize the risk of the author’s contribution having to be held over to a later issue. 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.