Guideline for Reviewer

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of the IEM Journal. Their evaluation determines whether submitted manuscripts meet the journal’s standards for originality, technical soundness, clarity, and relevance to the engineering field.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

2.1 Professionalism and Ethics

  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscripts and the review process.

  • Declare any potential conflict of interest immediately.

  • Provide an unbiased, constructive, and evidence-based assessment.

  • Avoid personal, offensive, or unprofessional language.

2.2 Commitment to Complete All Review Rounds

Reviewers are expected to complete all required rounds of review, from the first round until the final decision is reached.

  • Reviewers will not receive the reviewer incentive if they fail to respond to the 2nd or subsequent rounds—even if the manuscript is later accepted for publication.

  • This ensures consistency and fairness in the evaluation of revised manuscripts.

3. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

3.1 Originality & Contribution

  • Does the manuscript offer new findings, methods, or insights?

  • Is the contribution relevant and valuable to engineering practice or research?

3.2 Technical Quality & Rigor

  • Are methods and experiments well-designed and justified?

  • Are results accurate, consistent, and properly interpreted?

3.3 Clarity & Organization

  • Is the manuscript well-structured?

  • Are figures, tables, and references clear and appropriate?

3.4 Relevance to the IEM Journal Scope

  • Does the topic fall within engineering, applied engineering research, or professional engineering practice?

4. Structure of a Good Review Report

A high-quality review should include:

4.1 Summary of the Manuscript

A brief, objective summary showing you understood the work.

4.2 Major Comments

Substantial issues affecting validity, clarity, or contribution, such as:

  • Methodological flaws

  • Missing key references

  • Unclear interpretation of results

  • Significant language issues

4.3 Minor Comments

Smaller items that can improve the paper, such as:

  • Typographical mistakes

  • Minor clarifications

  • Formatting issues

4.4 Recommendation

Choose one:

  • Accept — ready for publication with minimal edits.

  • Minor Revision — requires small improvements; no major restructuring.

  • Major Revision — significant issues; needs re-review after revision.

  • Reject — fundamental flaws; unsuitable for publication.

Ensure the decision is consistent with your comments.

 

5. Reviewer Timelines

  • First-round review: 2–4 weeks

  • Subsequent rounds: 1–2 weeks
    Late reviews may delay publication, so adherence to timelines is appreciated.

6. Confidential Notes to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential remarks to the Editor regarding:

  • Concerns not suitable to share with authors

  • Ethical issues

  • Overlap with other works