Peer Review Policy

The Insights Sustainable Engineering Practices Journal (ISEP) is committed to ensuring the highest standards of academic integrity and quality through a rigorous peer review process. The peer review process is crucial for evaluating the quality, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. ISEP employs a double-blind peer review system, which is designed to maintain the objectivity, fairness, and transparency of the review process.

Key Aspects of the Peer Review Policy:

1. Double-Blind Peer Review:

   • ISEP follows a double-blind peer review process, which means that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This helps ensure impartiality and minimizes potential biases in the review process.
   • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in sustainable engineering and related fields, and they provide independent, unbiased evaluations of the manuscript.

2. Reviewer Selection:

   • Reviewers are selected by the journal’s editorial team based on their knowledge, expertise, and experience in the subject area of the manuscript. The aim is to assign the most appropriate reviewers to assess the manuscript thoroughly.
   • ISEP strives to ensure that reviewers are experts in the topic of the manuscript and have no conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.

3. Types of Manuscripts Reviewed:

   • Original Research Articles: These articles are thoroughly evaluated for their scientific rigor, methodology, data analysis, and conclusions.
   • Review Articles: Review articles that synthesize existing research and provide new perspectives on sustainable engineering topics are assessed for their thoroughness and relevance.
   • Case Studies: Practical examples and real-world applications of sustainable engineering are evaluated for their applicability, relevance, and clarity.
   • Short Communications: Brief articles or reports that discuss new ideas, preliminary research, or emerging trends in the field of sustainable engineering.

4. Review Criteria: Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following key criteria:

   • Scientific Quality: Reviewers assess the soundness of the research methodology, data analysis, and the validity of the conclusions.
   • Originality and Novelty: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s contribution to the field and whether the research offers new insights or developments.
   • Relevance: The manuscript’s relevance to the scope of ISEP, particularly in relation to sustainable engineering practices and their applications.
   • Clarity and Structure: The overall clarity of writing, logical organization, and presentation of the content, including the structure of the article.
   • Impact and Contribution: The potential of the manuscript to advance knowledge, influence practices, or contribute to sustainable solutions in engineering.
   • Ethical Standards: The manuscript’s adherence to ethical guidelines for research, including proper citation practices, consent for human/animal studies (if applicable), and the integrity of data presented.

5. Review Process:

   • Initial Screening: Once a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and formatting requirements.
   • Peer Review: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is sent to at least two independent reviewers who will evaluate the manuscript based on the criteria outlined above.
   • Review Timeline: The typical timeline for reviewers to submit their feedback is 3-4 weeks. If an extension is needed, reviewers are encouraged to inform the editorial team.
   • Feedback to Authors: Authors will receive feedback from the reviewers and editors, which may include suggestions for revisions or improvements. Authors are required to revise the manuscript and resubmit it for further evaluation if necessary.

6. Decision Making: Based on the feedback from the peer reviewers, the editorial team will make one of the following decisions:

   • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without revisions or with minor revisions.
   • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted, but some revisions are required. The authors must address the reviewers' comments before resubmission.
   • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes. The authors are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript for a second round of review.
   • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or relevance, and the decision is made not to publish the manuscript.

7. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers:

   • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential and should not share, discuss, or use the contents for personal gain.
   • Impartiality: Reviewers must provide objective and unbiased feedback, focusing solely on the scientific merit and quality of the manuscript.
   • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide detailed and constructive feedback that will help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviews should be respectful, professional, and based on evidence rather than personal opinions.
   • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.

8. Post-Publication Review:

   • ISEP encourages ongoing scholarly discussion and post-publication review. Readers and authors can engage with published articles by submitting comments or critiques, which may be published as responses or updates.
   • Post-publication comments will be reviewed and, if appropriate, published in the journal.

9. Ethical Guidelines for Authors:

   • Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are original and free from plagiarism. Proper citations and references should be provided for all sources of information that are not original.
   • Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, funding sources, and ethical approval (for research involving human or animal subjects).
   • Authors should respond to reviewers' comments in a transparent manner and provide clear justifications for any changes made in the manuscript.

10. Transparency and Accountability:

    • ISEP promotes transparency throughout the peer review process. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines and professional standards. Any unethical behavior or violation of the review process will be investigated, and appropriate actions will be taken.

By adhering to this peer review policy, Insights Sustainable Engineering Practices Journal ensures that only high-quality, rigorous research is published, contributing to the advancement of sustainable engineering practices and promoting a robust academic dialogue within the field.