Scope and Originality
Papers submitted to the Journal of Engineering Technical Sciences and Engineering must be:
- Unpublished elsewhere,
- Not under consideration for publication in another journal,
- Approved by all authors,
- Original scientific research.
Preliminary Review and Similarity Check
Submissions undergo a preliminary review for format and ethics before proceeding to the peer review stage. At this stage, the suitability of the work for the journal's scope, methodological adequacy, scientific contribution, and originality are reviewed. Similarity checks are performed using Turnitin or iThenticate; studies with a similarity rate above 20% are returned to the author(s) or rejected if deemed inappropriate.
Impartiality and Equality
The chief editor adopts a fair and impartial approach during the evaluation process, independent of personal characteristics such as ethnic identity, gender, nationality, beliefs, or political views. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are forwarded to a subject editor who is an expert in the relevant field.
Peer Review Process and Decision Mechanism
- Double-blind peer review is applied; the identities of the author and reviewers are kept confidential from each other.
- The subject editor sends the article to at least two (2) or three (3) national/international expert reviewers for evaluation.
- Based on the reports, minor/major revisions may be requested from the author(s), or a rejection decision may be made.
- At least two (2) positive referee reports are required for acceptance at the end of the process.
- The duration and scope of revisions are determined by the editorial board; the subject editor may resubmit the article to the referee if deemed necessary.
- The final decision is made by the chief editor/associate editor(s), taking into account the referee opinions and the field editor's assessment.
Evaluation Criteria (Recommended Framework)
Referees are expected to consider the following criteria with a scientific, ethical, and impartial approach:
- Does the work offer a new and original contribution to the field?
- Does the abstract accurately and clearly reflect the study?
- Is the methodology clear, systematic, and reproducible?
- Is there a consistent relationship between the findings and interpretations?
- Do the data and appropriate analyses support the conclusions?
- Is the literature current and sufficient? Are the references accurate?
- Are the language, presentation, and academic writing standards adequate?
Ethical Principles to be Observed by Reviewers
- Constructive and respectful communication: Opinions should be conveyed in a scientific framework, using polite and constructive language; personal characterisations should be avoided.
- Objectivity and scope: The evaluation should be based solely on the article's content; ideological, religious, ethnic, or commercial concerns should not influence the review.
- Impartiality and confidentiality: All information and documents related to the refereeing process are confidential and should not be shared with third parties until the process is complete.
- Conflict of interest: If there is an academic, institutional, or personal conflict of interest with the author(s), the referee should decline and inform the editorial board.
- Document security: Once the review is complete, the article and its appendices should not be stored or used without permission.
- Limits of expertise: If the article falls outside the reviewer's area of expertise, the invitation should be declined and the editor informed immediately.
- Timely feedback: Responses to invitations and accepted reviews should be completed on time within the specified deadlines.
- Suspicion of undeclared AI use: If any, it should be reported objectively to the editor with concrete evidence.