Directrices de Revisores

Manuscripts submitted to the journal Engineering, Sustainability, and Society for publication are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. A double-blind peer review model is adopted to preserve the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Carefully selected reviewer comments like yours are a valuable guide for editors when making acceptance decisions on manuscripts.

Reviewer Selection

When selecting reviewers, we ensure they meet the following criteria:

  • Relevant expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Appropriate academic background to review the manuscript, typically holding a doctoral degree.
  • Experience in the specific subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers who accept a manuscript review are responsible for:

  • Declaring conflicts of interest before beginning the review.
  • Timely declining an invitation if unavailable, and, if possible, recommending alternative reviewers.
  • Completing the review and submitting the report within the expected timeframe.
  • Evaluating the manuscript impartially and providing a detailed report with specific comments.
  • Reporting any suspected misconduct to the editors for further investigation.
  • Maintaining confidentiality of assigned manuscripts.

To maintain an efficient and effective peer review process and smooth editorial service, we appreciate reviewers taking a few minutes to read the following guidelines.

We strictly adhere to the criteria specified by COPE for ethical academic publishing with maximum transparency. Therefore, we expect reviewers who accept review assignments to follow ethical requirements. We recommend that reviewers consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers when reviewing manuscripts submitted to the journal Engineering, Sustainability, and Society.

Timeliness of Response

Prompt communication between the journal and reviewers is essential for a consistent, fair, and timely review of manuscripts. We expect prospective reviewers to:

  • Accept or decline a review invitation promptly.
  • Return a review within the proposed deadline.
  • Suggest relevant alternative reviewers if unable to complete the review.

If circumstances change and you cannot fulfill your original agreement or require an extension, please notify the journal immediately.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

It is critical for reviewers to provide impartial feedback. Before reviewing, reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. Conflicts may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. If you are unsure whether a conflict exists that might prevent you from reviewing, please inform the journal and seek advice.

Confidentiality

Respecting the confidentiality of the peer review process is essential. Information from the manuscript must not be used or shared in part or whole until the article is published. Reviewers must also take care not to reveal their identity to the authors.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports and are not allowed to impersonate others during the peer review process. If you wish to involve others in the review, you must request permission from the journal’s editorial office in advance. The names of any individuals who contributed to the review should be included in the review report signature.

Suspected Ethical Violations

Reviewers must report any suspected misconduct to the editorial office for further investigation. For example, you may notice significant similarities between the manuscript you are reviewing and another manuscript submitted to a different journal or a published article. For any ethical concerns, please contact the editorial office directly via email.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

To ensure a thorough and fair review of manuscripts, reviewers are required to complete an evaluation form covering the following essential aspects:

  • Authenticity and Originality: The results presented in the manuscript must be the authors' original contribution, free from plagiarism or fabrication. New ideas, methods, or findings are highly valued.
  • Relevance and Impact: The work should be interesting and relevant to the journal’s audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
  • Scientific Rigor: The study’s design and execution must meet recognized technical standards. Conclusions must be supported by solid evidence, and methodology should be transparent and reproducible.
  • Research Ethics: The study is expected to have been conducted ethically and respectfully, especially when involving humans, animals, or other study subjects.
  • Language Quality: The manuscript must be written clearly and precisely in English, free from spelling and grammatical errors, to ensure effective communication.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to improve the quality and relevance of reviewed manuscripts. Editors make decisions based on careful consideration of all reviewer comments, ensuring a fair and transparent editorial process.