Review Process Guidelines

 | Post date: 2019/07/26 | 
Information for Reviewers

What points should be considered when assessing the quality of a paper?
1. Is the submitted manuscript clear, correct, and in accordance with the journal’s aims?
  • Are the problems and purposes of the work clearly stated?
  • Is the subject of the work within the journal’s scope?
  • Is it correct and free from obvious errors?
  • Are the mathematics and methodology of the work rigorous?
2. Is the work original and interesting for the reader?
  • Is the submitted manuscript original? Does it contain new results that advance the prior research results in its scientific field?
  • Has any part of the paper already been published elsewhere? Does it constitute plagiarism?
  • Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?
  • Does the presentation fit a scientific paper? Is there any critical information missing?
3. Is the presentation of ideas satisfactory?
  • Does the title of the paper reflect the content of the paper?
  • Is the abstract well-written to describe the essential information?
  • Is the introduction section well-written and satisfactory?
  • Is the length of the paper appropriate depending on its type?
  • Is the conclusion section logically entailed by the results?
  • Is the paper written in concise and eloquent English?
Tips for Writing a Review Report
Reviewers should consider the following points when writing their review reports:
1. There are two sections to write the reviews; one is for the reviewer’s comments to the chief editor, and another for the reviewer’s comments to the author(s). Reviewers comments to the chief-editor will be read only by the editorial office and will not be revealed to the authors.
2. Reviewers should provide an overall recommendation for or against the publication of the manuscript to the chief-editor.
3. If Reviewers believe that the manuscript requires revision, they are requested to provide constructive comments and suggestions for improving the quality and presentation of the paper.
4. When Reviewers provide suggestions on revisions, they should make it clear if they are mandatory or optional.

View: 1992 Time(s)   |   Print: 408 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Energy Engineering & Management

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb