Peer Review Process

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Peer Review Process

How JETS evaluates manuscripts through independent peer review, from technical screening and reviewer selection to editorial decisions, revision and acceptance.

Peer review is how the Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences (JETS) makes sure that what it publishes is sound, original and useful. Every research article is assessed by independent experts before a decision is made, and the editors are responsible for making that assessment fair, rigorous and timely.

Publication Ethics

The peer review process follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

At a Glance

Peer Review at JETS

Review Model

Double-Blind

Authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities.

Reviewers

At Least 2

Independent external reviewers for every manuscript.

Reviewer Diversity

2+ Countries

Reviewers are drawn from at least two different countries.

Decision

Handling Editor

Decision made with the Editor-in-Chief.

First Decision

7 Days

Target time from submission.

Recognition

Annual List

Reviewers are recognised on the journal website each year.

Scope of Review

What Is Peer Reviewed

All research articles submitted to JETS are peer reviewed according to the process described on this page.

Editorials, Letters and Replies Editorials, letters to the editor, replies and correction notices are assessed by the editors.

Technical Claims Letters may also be sent for review when they contain technical claims that need expert evaluation.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the JETS editorial team go through exactly the same process, handled by an editor with no connection to the authors.

Double-Blind Review

Review Model

Authors

Anonymous

Authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

Reviewers

Anonymous

Reviewers are not told who the authors are.

Preparing an Anonymised Manuscript

Title Page Uploaded separately with author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding and declarations.

Manuscript No author names or affiliations, with identifying details removed from the text, captions, filenames and document properties.

Self-Citations Self-citations should be written in the third person.

Important: The editors know the identities of both authors and reviewers, even though the peer review itself is double-blind.

Editorial Workflow

How a Manuscript Is Reviewed

Technical Check

The editorial office checks that the submission is complete and follows the author guidelines, including the required authorship statement, declaration of competing interest and English proofreading certificate. Incomplete submissions are returned to the authors.

Similarity Check

The manuscript is screened with Turnitin under the JETS Plagiarism Policy. Manuscripts above the journal's similarity threshold are returned without review.

Editorial Assessment

An editor assesses whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope and is of sufficient originality, quality and interest to justify review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are declined without external review, usually within 7 days.

Assignment to a Handling Editor

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an editor with suitable expertise and no conflict of interest.

Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor invites at least two independent experts. If two suitable reviewers from different countries have not agreed to review within two months of the start of the review stage, the manuscript is returned to the authors.

Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit a report with a recommendation, normally within 2–3 weeks.

Decision

The handling editor considers the reports and makes a recommendation. The decision is confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision

Authors revise the manuscript and respond to each comment using the JETS response-to-reviewers template. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers, new reviewers, or assessed by the editor.

Acceptance

Once all concerns have been addressed, the manuscript is accepted and moves to production.

Reviewer Selection

How Reviewers Are Chosen

The handling editor selects reviewers based on their expertise in the topic and methods of the manuscript, publication record, and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment.

JETS Reviewer Requirements

Independent Reviewers

Countries

Same Institution

Reviewers are not selected from the same institution as any of the authors.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers and ask for specific people to be excluded, with reasons. The editor considers these requests but is not bound by them and never relies only on reviewers suggested by authors.

Suggested reviewers are checked for independence, and institutional email addresses or verified profiles, such as Scopus or ORCID, are required.

Reviewers must declare any competing interest before accepting an invitation and must decline if they cannot give an impartial review.

Reviewer Criteria

What Reviewers Assess

Originality and Significance Does the work make a clear new contribution to its field? Is that contribution stated honestly and placed in context?

Soundness of Methods Are experimental, numerical, analytical or field methods appropriate and correctly applied? Are models validated? Are measurements calibrated and uncertainties reported?

Reproducibility Are methods described in enough detail for others to repeat the work? Is the Data Availability Statement appropriate?

Support for Conclusions Do the results justify the conclusions? Are limitations acknowledged?

Use of Literature Are relevant and recent sources cited? Are there unnecessary citations?

Presentation Is the manuscript clearly organised and written? Are figures and tables accurate, readable and necessary?

Ethics Are the Ethics Statement, permissions and declarations in order? Is there any sign of plagiarism, duplicate publication or manipulated data?

Reviewers write a report for the authors explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and what should be changed. They may also send separate confidential comments to the editor.

Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject

Editorial Decision

Editorial Decisions

Reviewers advise; editors decide.

The handling editor weighs the reports, reads the manuscript and may consult another reviewer or a member of the editorial board, particularly when reviewers disagree.

The decision is not a vote: a well-argued concern from one reviewer may outweigh a positive recommendation from another.

Accept

The manuscript can be published as it is, or with only editorial corrections.

Minor Revision

Small changes are needed; the revised manuscript is usually checked by the editor.

Major Revision

Substantial changes or additional work are needed; the revised manuscript is usually sent back to reviewers.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for JETS. Authors receive reviewers' comments where these may help improve the work.

Every decision letter explains the reasons for the decision and includes the reviewers' comments.

Revision

Revisions

Minor Revision

2 Weeks

Revised manuscript due within two weeks.

Major Revision

3 Weeks

Revised manuscript due within three weeks.

Authors Should Submit

Revised Manuscript

The revised manuscript with changes highlighted.

Response to Reviewers

A point-by-point response using the JETS template, explaining what was changed and where, or why a change was not made.

Authors who need more time should ask the editorial office before the deadline. Manuscripts not returned on time may be treated as withdrawn. If the main concerns have not been resolved, the manuscript may be rejected.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers Must Not

Share a manuscript or discuss it with anyone without the editor's permission.

Use information, data or ideas from the manuscript in their own work.

Upload any part of the manuscript or review report to generative AI tools or other external services.

Contact the authors directly.

Review reports are shared only with the authors and, in anonymised form, with the other reviewers of the same manuscript. JETS does not publish review reports.

Guidance on the use of generative AI in reviewing: JETS Generative AI Policy

Reviewer Recognition

Recognition of Reviewers

Reviewers give their time and expertise voluntarily, and JETS is grateful to them.

Annual Reviewer List Reviewers are recognised through an annual list published on the JETS website. View Reviewer List →

Review Certificate Reviewers receive a certificate after completion of their review.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error or an unfair review may appeal once, following the JETS Complaints and Appeals policy.

Quality Assurance

Monitoring the Quality of Review

The editors monitor the timeliness and quality of reviews.

Reviewers whose reports are consistently late, superficial, discourteous or biased are no longer invited.

Peer-Review Integrity Evidence of peer-review manipulation, such as fake reviewer accounts, undisclosed conflicts or coordinated citation requests, is handled under the JETS policy on allegations of misconduct.

JETS Peer Review

Fair, Rigorous and Independent Review

JETS is committed to maintaining a peer review process that protects confidentiality, encourages independent scientific assessment and supports transparent and responsible editorial decisions.

Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences · Institut Teknologi Bandung