Peer Review at MJEN

As a peer reviewer for MJEN, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system.
Submitted papers are reviewed at least two outside referees. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within 1 to 2 weeks.
We greatly appreciate the time spent in preparing a review, and will consult you on a revision of a manuscript only if we believe the paper has been significantly improved but still requires input. The final responsibility for decisions of acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript lies with the editor.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments.
  2. If, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review.
  3. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments.
  4. Just as you wish prompt evaluations of your own research, please return your reviews within the time period specified when you were asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, it is your responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request.
  5. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors' specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).
  6. You should be aware of MJEN’s policies for authors regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.

 

CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENT RESEARCH ARTICLES (RA); 
RA should report a major breakthrough in a particular field.
Overall Recommendation: On the basis of the journal’s mission, recommend in your review whether the paper should be published in MJEN and provide a more detailed critique based on the following:
Technical Rigor: Evaluate whether, or to what extent, the data and methods substantiate the conclusions and interpretations. If appropriate, indicate what additional data and information are needed to do so.
Novelty: Indicate in your review if the conclusions are novel or are too similar to work already published.
Data. The data necessary to support, understand, and extend the conclusions should be presented in the paper or Supporting Online material or should be deposited in a database upon publication. Data presentation should follow conventions in your field. Please comment on the whether these conditions are met or indicate how they can be.
Supplementary Materials. Supplementary Materials include methods, text, or data that is still necessary for the integrity and excellence of the paper. They must be directly related to the conclusions of the print paper and should not present additional interpretations or conclusions. Your review should include an evaluation of the Supplementary Materials.
Security: We ask reviewers to inform us if they have concerns that release of this paper may pose a danger to public health, safety, or security. Such concerns will be brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief  for further evaluation.
Length. Research Articles may be up to 6 printed pages (5000 - 6000 words). The data and ideas should be such that they warrant more space than a Report.
The final selection is based on relative quality of papers rather than absolute merit and is constrained by available space in MJEN and our commitment to balance subject matter.
Conflict of Interest: If you cannot judge this paper impartially, please notify us immediately. If you have any financial or professional affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, please describe those as indicated on our online review form.
Confidentiality: We expect reviewers to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and ensure that it is not disseminated or exploited. Please destroy your copy of the manuscript when you are done. Only discuss the paper with a colleague with permission from the editor. We do not disclose the identity of our reviewers.
Returning your review: Please return your review using our form at http://journals.manas.edu.kg/mjen/index.php To login, use your user ID (it is included on the email notifying you of the review) and the password you have set.

 

CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENT REPORTS:
Reports should present a major, novel, and original research result that is of strong interdisciplinary interest or unusual interest to the specialist.
Overall Recommendation: On the basis of the journal’s mission, recommend in your review whether the paper should be published in MJEN and provide a more detailed critique based on the following: Technical Rigor: Evaluate whether, or to what extent, the data and methods substantiate the conclusions and interpretations. If appropriate, indicate what additional data and information are needed to validate the conclusions or support the interpretations.
Novelty: Indicate in your review if the conclusions are novel or are too similar to work already published.
Data. The data necessary to support, understand, and extend the conclusions should be presented in the paper or Supporting Online material or should be deposited in a database upon publication. Data presentation should follow conventions in your field. Please comment on the whether these conditions are met or indicate how they can be.
Supplementary Materials. Supplementary Materials include methods, text, or data that is still necessary for the integrity and excellence of the paper. They must be directly related to the conclusions of the print paper and should not present additional interpretations or conclusions. Your review should include an evaluation of the Supplementary Materials.
Security: We ask reviewers to inform us if they have concerns that release of this paper may pose a danger to public health, safety, or security. Such concerns will be brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief for further evaluation. Length. Reports should be about 4 printed pages (3000 to 3500 words and up to four figures). Additional Supplementary materials can be included online. The final selection is based on relative quality of papers rather than absolute merit and is constrained by available space in Science and our commitment to balance subject matter.
Conflict of Interest: If you cannot judge this paper impartially, please notify us immediately. If you have any financial or professional affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, please describe those in as indicated on our online review form.
Confidentiality: We expect reviewers to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and ensure that it is not disseminated or exploited. Please destroy your copy of the manuscript when you are done. Only discuss the paper with a colleague with permission from the editor. We do not disclose the identity of our reviewers.
Returning your review: Please return your review using our form at http://journals.manas.edu.kg/mjen/index.php To login, use your user ID (it is included on the email notifying you of the review) and the password you have set.

 

CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENT REVİEWS;
Reviews are published online, where additional length and references, and enhanced media, are possible. They should provide a balanced overview of recent work (past three years) that lead to a new, interesting synthesis of an active area of research. A review can cover some work from the authors’ own laboratory. Ideally the Review should be provocative, and opinionated but rooted in a balanced survey of the literature, and include original thinking or re-analysis.
Overall Recommendation: On the basis of the journal’s mission, recommend in your review whether the paper should be published in MJEN and provide a more detailed critique based on the following: Technical Merit. The data cited or presented and arguments should justify the conclusions and inferences. The Review should correctly cite important discoveries in the field and, although it may focus primarily on work done in one laboratory or by one group of investigators, it should be set in the context of, and acknowledge, work done by others whether or not they have conflicting views.
Comprehensibility. General readers should be able to learn from the article what has been firmly established and what are significant unresolved questions. Length. Online reviews can be up to 6000 words in length and can include up to 100 references and 4-6 display items (figures and tables). It the Review exceeds these guidelines, we would appreciate suggestions for shortening it.
Supplementary Materials. Supplementary Materials for Reviews includes features and data that cannot be presented as part of a usual PDF or online format and cannot be easily integrated into the main text. They must be directly related to the conclusions of the paper. Your review should include an evaluation of the Supplementary Materials.
Security: We ask reviewers to inform us if they have concerns that release of this paper may pose a danger to public health, safety, or security. Such concerns will be brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief for further evaluation.
Conflict of Interest: If you cannot judge this paper impartially, please notify us immediately. If you have any financial or professional affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, please describe those as indicated on our online review form.
Confidentiality: We expect reviewers to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and ensure that it is not disseminated or exploited. Please destroy your copy of the manuscript when you are done. Only discuss the paper with a colleague with permission from the editor. We do not disclose the identity of our reviewers.
Returning your review: Please return your review using our form at http://journals.manas.edu.kg/mjen/index.php To login, use your user ID (it is included on the email notifying you of the review) and the password you have set.


 

>> All rights reserved.
MANAS Journal of Engineering