Peer Review Process

Description

Engineering and Technology Horizons (ETH) publishes two types of articles: research and academic articles in English. All manuscripts submitted to ETH undergo a strict peer-review process to ensure the published research is of high quality and validity. The assessment process is carried out by experts in relevant fields of study, who evaluate the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope (Read more). ETH follows a double-blind review system with at least three expert reviewers. By doing so, ETH can ensure that the comments from the reviewers are academically sound and that their recommendations are helpful to the authors. 

Step 1: Editorial review

Authors should submit their manuscripts for ETH online at Submissions. To submit their work, authors must first register on the website . It's vital that authors only register once. The submitting author, typically the corresponding author, holds responsibility for the manuscript throughout the submission, peer review, and production processes. Once you submit your manuscript to ETH, it will undergo an internal plagiarism screening process. The manuscript will be immediately rejected if the plagiarism percentage exceeds 30% (excluding the reference list). The editorial office will then review the abstract to determine if the manuscript is suitable for ETH. The manuscript will also undergo a structural and quality check for format, figures, and references (Author Guidelines). If the quality is unsatisfactory, the manuscript will be (1) sent back to the authors for improvement or (2) rejected. However, if the quality is satisfactory, the manuscript will be sent to the section editor for further evaluation.

Step 2: Peer review

Section editor evaluation

Once the manuscript successfully passes the suitability check, it is sent to the section editor specializing in the relevant field of study. The peer review process at ETH is double-blind and involves at least three expert reviewers. In the manuscript, all identifying information, such as authors' names, affiliations, email addresses, and acknowledgments, is removed by the section editor to ensure anonymity. Then, the section editor invites reviewers who should be affiliated with institutions and/or countries different from that of the corresponding author, which takes up to 3 weeks.

After the reviewers agree to review the manuscript, it will typically take 3-4 weeks for them to complete their review. Throughout the review process, the identity of the authors is kept confidential. Reviewers are expected to provide an impartial and thorough review of the submission. Suppose any of the invited reviewers provides only brief comments, such as suggestions for improving the figures or identifying typos, without giving any feedback on the scientific content of the manuscript; in that case, the section editor will invite additional reviewers to ensure a comprehensive and fair review.

First decision

After receiving reviewer feedback, the section editor will decide whether to accept, reject, or require a manuscript revision. The decision will be based on the manuscript's adherence to the publication conditions and the reviewers' comments. If the reviewers' comments differ significantly, the section editor may invite an additional reviewer before making a decision. The section editor will communicate the decision (acceptance, rejection, or revisions required) and any relevant comments submitted by the reviewers to the Editor-in-Chief. Then, the Editor-in-Chief communicates the decision to the authors via the online system. Please note that any comments or suggestions provided will be kept anonymous. Details of each decision are as follows.

(1) The decision to accept the manuscript
The manuscript will go to production after the authors are informed of the decision.

(2) The decision to reject the manuscript
Once the authors are notified of the decision, the review process ends.

(3) The decision to require a manuscript revision
Authors are typically given 3-4 weeks to revise their manuscript after receiving feedback from reviewers. If the authors decide to revise and resubmit their manuscript, the section editor will review it to ensure that all feedback from every reviewer has been addressed. If the authors have not addressed feedback from every reviewer, the section editor will contact them to complete their responses.

If a reviewer previously recommended "Resubmit for review," the revised manuscript will be returned to the required reviewer for re-evaluation. This will enter a double-blind review process again. The required reviewers will be given 3-4 weeks to complete their re-review. If the reviewers are unsatisfied or still have academically critical comments, a second or third revision may be required. In some cases, a revision may be rejected because the authors have not considered the reviewers' comments seriously. If a reviewer previously recommended "Revision required," the section editor will carefully review how the authors address all reviewers' comments and decide whether or not the revision should be sent to the same reviewers for reassessment. If the section editor considers the authors' responses satisfactory, the revision can be accepted, and the publication can proceed without sending it to the same reviewers.

Once a revision is reviewed, if two reviewers approve it but the other reviewer rejects it or requires further improvement, the section editor will decide whether to ask for another revision or invite a new reviewer for additional feedback. If the majority of the reviewers approve the submission/revision, the section editor will use unbiased judgment to determine whether to accept it or require another revision. If three reviewers accept to review the revision and one or two of those reviewers become unreachable after the due date has passed, the section editor will send a reminder to the remaining reviewer(s). Suppose the remaining reviewer(s) are still unreachable after seven days, and another reviewer accepts the revision without further comment; in that case, the section editor will investigate how the authors responded to the comments of the uncontactable reviewer(s). If the authors have satisfactorily responded to the comments, the section editor may proceed with acceptance. The Editor-in-Chief communicates the decision to the authors through the online system.

If the section editor sends a review request to the same reviewers who reviewed the initial submission, but none of them accept to review the revision, the section editor will send a reminder. If the same reviewers are still uncontactable after seven days, the section editor will assess how the authors responded to the reviewers' comments in the initial submission. If the authors have addressed the comments satisfactorily and the issues are minor, the section editor may accept the revision. If the authors have ignored some comments or responded poorly to any of the observations, the section editor may request another revision or invite a new reviewer for additional opinions.

If the authors fail to submit a revised version of their manuscript within 3-4 weeks after receiving reviewer feedback, the section editor will send two follow-up emails. The first reminder will be sent after the revision due date has passed, and the authors may request an extension. If the authors do not respond to the section editor's first reminder within two weeks, the editor will send a second reminder. If the authors are still unreachable within two weeks after the second reminder is sent, the section editor may consider terminating the review process and decline the submission. The Editor-in-Chief informs the authors of the decision through the online system.

Accepted manuscript

After completing the double-blind peer review process, authors will be informed of their manuscript's acceptance for publication. This process ensures that all submitted manuscripts meet the highest standards of ethical conduct and scientific integrity.

Step 3: Production

Once ETH accepts the manuscript, the production process will begin.

English editing, format correction, and proofreading

The editorial office will check the accepted manuscript for grammatical and formatting errors. If any errors are detected, the production editor will contact the authors for proofreading and to address any queries that may arise. The authors will also be requested to improve any low-quality figures.

For English proofreading and editing, it is recommended to approach native English editors or professional service providers specializing in these areas. However, authors can use AI-powered tools for English editing to improve their manuscripts and make the process more efficient.

After making the necessary corrections, the corresponding author will return the corrected article to the journal. The editorial office, in collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief, will finalize the formatting and any final corrections.

Copyright transfer

For the copyright transfer, a form will be sent to the corresponding author, who will sign it on behalf of all co-authors. The corresponding author must return the signed copyright transfer form to ETH, as failure to do so will prevent the article from advancing to the next production stage.

Volume, number, article number, and DOI assigned

The article will be published online upon completion of all processes. The published article will be assigned a volume, number, article number, and DOI. The entire production process will take around 3-4 weeks.