The Journal of Innovative Engineering and Natural Science (JIENS) rigorously applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, scientific quality, and impartiality of submitted manuscripts. The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the following principles and procedures:

1. Double-Blind Peer Review
o Reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This approach aims to enhance impartiality and create a fair environment for evaluation.

2. Reviewer Selection
o Submitted manuscripts are subjected to preliminary evaluation by the journal editors and editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable are sent to at least two expert reviewers from different institutions.
o Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise in the subject matter, academic qualifications, and experience in the field.
o Potential conflicts of interest involving reviewers are meticulously checked, and reviewers affiliated with the same institution as the author(s) are not assigned to evaluate the manuscript.

3. Evaluation Criteria
o Manuscripts are evaluated for originality, methodological rigor, accuracy of results, scientific contribution, clarity, and their relevance to the fields of engineering and natural sciences.
o All evaluation criteria are established in line with the journal's publication principles and transparently communicated to reviewers.

4. Confidentiality
o All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and information related to the review process are kept confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing information or using it for purposes other than evaluation.

5. Editorial Decision
o Based on feedback from reviewers, the final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) is made by the Editorial Board. Reviewer recommendations are the most significant factor guiding the editorial decision.

6. Process Timeline
o The peer review process typically takes 4 to 6 weeks. Authors are kept informed of the status of their manuscript, and any delays are managed transparently.

7. Revisions
o In case of revision requests, authors are expected to submit their revised manuscripts within the specified timeframe (30 days for major revisions, 20 days for minor revisions). Manuscripts that exceed these deadlines may be removed from the review process.

8. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
o Reviewers should only evaluate manuscripts within their area of expertise.
o Reviewers are expected to adhere to scientific ethical standards and remain objective throughout the review process.
o Any ethical violations or potential plagiarism identified in the manuscript must be reported to the editors.

9. Appeals and Discussions
o Authors may submit their views or objections regarding reviewer evaluations to the Editorial Board. In such cases, appeals are thoroughly reviewed, and if necessary, an additional opinion is obtained from another reviewer.

10. Transparency of Review Outcomes
oAll peer review processes and outcomes for published articles are archived in line with the journal's ethical principles. Detailed information about the process can be provided when necessary.

These policies ensure a transparent, fair, and efficient peer review process for the journal. Detailed information on the responsibilities of reviewers and authors is available on the Journal of Innovative Engineering and Natural Science website.