Editor and Reviewer guidelines

The purpose of peer review is to enhance the quality of the manuscript and the material that is eventually published. Although peer review is a time-intensive process, it is crucial for ensuring the credibility and integrity of scientific journals. IRJAECT deeply appreciates the time and effort invested by reviewers in this essential process. Adhering to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines, we aim to ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and efficient. Manuscript acceptance or rejection is based on its significance, originality, clarity, study validity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. We identify potential reviewers through various channels, including the editorial board, personal knowledge, author suggestions, and bibliographic databases. Reviewers’ feedback is critical to our decision-making process regarding manuscript acceptance.

The Editor holds primary responsibility for maintaining the quality of the manuscript and enhancing the journal's reputation. They ensure that the journal’s scope and content evolve with changes in the field, incorporating emerging research. The Editor collaborates closely with the journal’s publishing staff to strategically develop the journal in response to market trends.

Editors' Responsibilities

  1. Editors hold full responsibility and authority to accept or reject an article.
  2. Editors are accountable for the content and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should consider both the needs of the authors and the readers when improving the publication.
  4. Editors must ensure the quality of the papers and uphold the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata or make corrections as necessary.
  6. Editors must be aware of the research funding sources associated with the papers.
  7. Editorial decisions should be based solely on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse decisions without a significant reason, nor overturn the decisions of previous editors.
  9. Editors are responsible for preserving the anonymity of reviewers.
  10. Editors should ensure that all research they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept papers when they are reasonably certain about their quality and relevance.
  12. Editors must act upon any suspicion of misconduct, whether the paper is published or unpublished, and make reasonable efforts to resolve the issue.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based solely on suspicions; solid proof of misconduct is required. They must also avoid conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

  1. Reviewers must keep all information regarding the paper confidential and treat it as privileged.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, avoiding personal criticism of the authors.
  3. Reviewers should present their views clearly and provide supporting arguments.
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editors of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other work they are aware of.
  6. Reviewers should avoid reviewing manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions involved.