Peer Review Process
EKTU Journal of Engineering Sciences is an academic journal committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, scientific integrity, and publication ethics. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a mandatory peer review process to assess their originality, scientific validity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Type of Peer Review
The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed at all stages of the review. This approach ensures objectivity, impartiality, and the elimination of potential conflicts of interest.
Review Criteria
Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:
| № | Criterion | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall assessment and relevance of the topic | Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope? Is the topic timely, significant, and well-justified? |
| 2 | Scientific novelty and quality of research | Are the results new, methodology appropriate, and conclusions valid? |
| 3 | Structure and clarity of presentation | Is the manuscript logically organized? Are materials clearly presented? Are there stylistic or technical errors? |
| 4 | Weaknesses and recommendations for revision | What aspects should be corrected, strengthened, or supplemented? |
| 5 | Overall recommendation | Accept / Accept after minor revisions / Major revisions required / Reject. |
Review Process
The peer review process consists of the following stages:
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript is evaluated by the Editorial Office to assess its compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, ethical standards, and originality. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.
2. Assignment to Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers, who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
3. Peer Review Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope, and provide detailed comments and recommendations for the authors and the editors.
4. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor makes one of the following decisions:
- accept for publication;
- accept with minor revisions;
- request major revisions;
- reject.
5. Revision and Re-evaluation
If revisions are required, authors must address all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the same reviewers.
Review Timeline
The journal strives to complete the peer review process within a reasonable timeframe. While review durations may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability, the editorial team makes every effort to provide an initial decision as promptly as possible.
Ethical Standards
The journal follows internationally recognized ethical guidelines, including the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspected cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of publication misconduct are handled in accordance with these guidelines.