Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
The SSIPMT Journal of Engineering Sciences follows a rigorous, transparent, and structured double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. Each manuscript undergoes multiple stages of evaluation by editorial members and subject experts to maintain academic integrity and research excellence. The process ensures that submitted work is assessed for originality, relevance, methodological accuracy, and contribution to the field.
Upon submission, the manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial office to ensure compliance with journal guidelines, formatting standards, and scope. This stage focuses on completeness, plagiarism checks, and adherence to ethical requirements.
- Compliance with submission guidelines and scope
- Plagiarism screening and originality check
- Formatting and ethical standards verification
Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements or fall outside the journal’s scope may be rejected at this stage.
After successful initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to a handling editor or subject-area expert. The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript’s relevance, originality, and academic merit.
A desk rejection may occur at this stage if the manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality expectations.
The handling editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Typically, two or more independent reviewers are selected.
- Subject expertise and domain knowledge
- Research and publication experience
- Academic integrity and impartiality
The journal adopts a double-blind review system where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, ensuring unbiased and objective evaluation.
- Originality and innovation
- Technical and methodological quality
- Clarity and presentation
- Contribution to engineering science and technology
After evaluation, reviewers submit detailed reports along with recommendations, which may include:
- Accept without changes
- Minor revisions required
- Major revisions required
- Reject
These recommendations are supported by constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript’s quality and scientific rigor.
The editor carefully reviews all reviewer comments and recommendations before making a final decision. In cases of conflicting opinions, additional reviews may be sought or a decision is made based on editorial judgment.
If revisions are required, authors revise their manuscript based on reviewer comments and submit a detailed response explaining all changes made. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review.
Once the manuscript satisfies all reviewer and editorial requirements, it is formally accepted for publication based on its quality, originality, and contribution to the field.
After acceptance, the manuscript undergoes professional copyediting to improve language, formatting, and consistency. Authors review final proofs before publication to ensure accuracy and quality.
