Peer Review Process

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology (TAJET)
ISSN: 2689-0984

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology uses peer review to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, technical relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The process supports informed editorial decisions and helps authors improve the clarity and reliability of their research.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial office checks each submission for completeness, compliance with author guidelines, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The initial assessment considers:

• Originality and contribution to engineering or technology.

• Clarity of the research objectives and technical presentation.

• Suitability of the methods, validation, and supporting evidence.

• Ethical approvals and permissions, where applicable.

• Authorship, funding, and conflict-of-interest declarations.

• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts may be returned for clarification or rejected before external review if they fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet its basic requirements. Passing this stage does not guarantee acceptance.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Suitable research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.

Authors must submit a separate title page and an anonymized manuscript, removing identifying information from the text and file properties. Although the journal takes steps to preserve anonymity, identities may sometimes be inferred from preprints, conference publications, references, or the research itself.

3. Reviewer Selection

Editors select reviewers according to their expertise, independence, availability, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewer selection considers the manuscript’s engineering discipline, methods, and application. Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline assignments where these could compromise their judgment.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but final selection remains the editor’s responsibility.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess:

• Technical significance, originality, and practical relevance.

• Research design and methodological rigor.

• Adequacy of experimental controls, measurement procedures, and validation.

• Suitability of models, assumptions, algorithms, and simulation settings.

• Appropriateness of comparison baselines and performance measures.

• Accuracy and clarity of results, equations, tables, and figures.

• Reproducibility and availability of supporting information.

• Whether conclusions are supported by the findings.

• Recognition of limitations, uncertainty, and implementation constraints.

• Compliance with ethical and reporting requirements.

Claims of improved performance, accuracy, efficiency, or reliability should be supported by fair comparisons and appropriate evidence. Reviewers distinguish between simulated findings, laboratory validation, and demonstrated real-world performance.

5. Editorial Decisions

The editor considers reviewer reports alongside the manuscript’s scientific and ethical merits. Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.

• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required.

• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before further assessment.

• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication or contains significant unresolved concerns.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision; the final decision rests with the editor. Where reports differ substantially, an additional independent review may be requested.

6. Revisions and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise must submit:

• An updated manuscript.

• A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

• An explanation of changes and evidence-based reasons for any disagreement.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers. Further revision rounds may be necessary.

Authors should meet the stated revision deadline or request an extension. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Acceptance and Publication

Acceptance is issued when the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, technical, reporting, and ethical requirements.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, and proof preparation. Authors must check proofs carefully, including equations, numerical values, diagrams, tables, and references.

Substantial changes to methods, results, conclusions, or authorship after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further review.

8. Review Timelines

Review duration depends on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and author response times.

The editorial office communicates decisions and revision deadlines to the corresponding author. Authors may contact the journal for a submission status update.

Acceptance or publication by a particular date cannot be guaranteed before the assessment process is complete.

9. Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Manuscripts, supporting files, and review correspondence are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished content without authorization or use it for personal advantage.

Reviewers must provide respectful, objective, and constructive feedback. Suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, undisclosed overlap, or ethical concerns must be reported to the editor.

Citation recommendations must have a scholarly justification and must not primarily serve to increase personal or journal citation counts.

Confidential manuscripts, proprietary technical information, and unpublished data must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality protections.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could affect impartial assessment and recuse themselves where necessary. Relevant interests may include collaboration, employment, consultancy, commercial competition, or patents connected to the research.

Submissions from editors or editorial board members receive independent handling. The submitting individual takes no part in reviewer selection or the decision on their own manuscript.

Publication charges and commercial interests do not influence review outcomes. Payment does not guarantee acceptance, favorable reviews, or preferential treatment.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence. Appeals should identify specific concerns about the assessment or decision.

The journal may seek independent editorial advice when reviewing an appeal. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, or the integrity of the process are assessed under the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.

Contact

For questions about peer review, submission status, revisions, or appeals, please contact the editorial office through the journal’s official Contact page.