Overview

The Journal of Innovations in Engineering Education (JIEE) is committed to publishing high-quality, original research. To ensure the quality and validity of published articles, all submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process. This policy outlines our peer review procedures and provides guidance to authors, reviewers, and editors.

The Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine:

• Whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal
• Whether the manuscript meets minimum quality standards
• Whether the manuscript adheres to the journal's submission guidelines
• Whether there are any ethical concerns or plagiarism issues

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria may be rejected without peer review. Authors will be notified typically within 1-2 weeks if their manuscript is desk-rejected.

Step 2: Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers who have expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject matter expertise and publication record
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Previous review quality and timeliness
• Geographic and institutional diversity when possible

Step 3: Single-Blind Review

JIEE uses a single-blind peer review process, where:

• Reviewers know the identity of the authors
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
• Reviewer comments are shared with authors anonymously

Reviewers are typically given 3-4 weeks to complete their review and provide detailed feedback on the manuscript's originality, methodology, significance, and presentation.

Step 4: Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewer comments, the Editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or minor revisions
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before acceptance
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes and will undergo another round of review
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JIEE

Step 5: Revision and Re-review

If revisions are required, authors are given a specific timeframe (typically 4-8 weeks depending on the extent of revisions) to revise and resubmit their manuscript. Authors must provide:

• A revised manuscript with changes clearly indicated
• A detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment
• Any additional data or materials requested by reviewers

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers or, in some cases, to new reviewers. The Editor makes the final decision on acceptance after reviewing the revised manuscript and author responses.

Instructions for Reviewers

Accepting a Review Invitation

When invited to review a manuscript, please consider the following before accepting:

• Do you have the necessary expertise to review this manuscript?
• Can you complete the review within the requested timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks)?
• Do you have any conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions?
• Have you collaborated with any of the authors in the past 3 years?

If you cannot complete the review or have a conflict of interest, please decline the invitation promptly and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

Confidentiality

The peer review process is confidential. Reviewers must:

• Not share the manuscript or review with anyone without permission from the editor
• Not use information from the manuscript for their own research purposes
• Delete all copies of the manuscript after completing the review
• Not contact the authors directly without editor approval

Review Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please evaluate the following aspects:

1. Originality and Significance:
   • Is the research original and novel?
   • Does it make a significant contribution to the field?
   • Are the findings of interest to the journal's readership?
2. Methodology and Data Analysis:
   • Are the research methods appropriate and clearly described?
   • Is the sample size adequate and statistically justified?
   • Are the data analysis methods appropriate and correctly applied?
   • Can the study be replicated based on the information provided?
3. Results and Interpretation:
   • Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data?
   • Are the conclusions justified by the results?
   • Have the limitations been adequately discussed?
   • Are alternative interpretations considered?
4. Literature Review:
   • Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
   • Are all key references cited?
   • Is the manuscript properly contextualized within existing research?
5. Presentation and Structure:
   • Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
   • Are the figures and tables appropriate and clearly labeled?
   • Is the language clear and free of grammatical errors?
   • Does it follow the journal's formatting guidelines?
6. Ethical Considerations:
   • Are there any ethical concerns with the research?
   • Is there evidence of plagiarism or data fabrication?
   • Have appropriate ethical approvals been obtained?
   • Are conflicts of interest properly disclosed?

Providing Constructive Feedback

Your review should be constructive, objective, and professional. Please:

• Provide specific, actionable feedback to help authors improve their manuscript
• Support your criticisms with evidence and references where appropriate
• Be respectful and avoid personal comments about the authors
• Distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity of the research and minor issues
• Clearly state your recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject)

Review Report Structure

We recommend structuring your review report as follows:

1. Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript and its main findings
2. General Comments: Overall assessment of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses
3. Major Comments: Significant issues that must be addressed (numbered for easy reference)
4. Minor Comments: Smaller issues, typos, or suggestions for improvement (numbered for easy reference)
5. Recommendation: Your final recommendation with brief justification

Timeliness

Please complete your review within the agreed timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks). If you need more time, please contact the editorial office as soon as possible. Timely reviews help ensure a fair and efficient process for authors.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts when conflicts of interest exist:

• You have collaborated with any of the authors in the past 3 years
• You are from the same institution as any of the authors
• You have a close personal relationship with any of the authors
• You have a financial interest in the research or its outcomes
• You have strong personal or professional biases regarding the topic
• You are currently involved in direct competition with the authors on the same topic

If you are unsure whether a conflict of interest exists, please contact the editorial office for guidance.

Reviewer Recognition

JIEE values the contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the quality of published research. We recognize reviewers by:

• Publishing an annual list of reviewers (with their consent)
• Providing reviewer certificates upon request
• Inviting regular reviewers to join the editorial board
• Acknowledging exceptional reviewers in editorial communications

Reviewers can verify their reviewing activity through platforms like Publons or ORCID (if they choose to register their reviews).

Appeals Process

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may appeal by contacting the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. Appeals should:

• Be submitted within 30 days of the editorial decision
• Include a detailed explanation of why the decision should be reconsidered
• Address all reviewer concerns with evidence and argumentation
• Not simply express disagreement without substantive justification

Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if warranted, may be sent to new reviewers or the editorial board for consultation. The decision on appeals is final.

Contact Information

For questions about the peer review process, please contact: