Editorial and Peer Review Policy (IJEER)
1) Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, scope fit, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance—without discrimination or undue influence.
2) Double-Blind Peer Review
IJEER uses double-blind review, meaning:
reviewers do not know author identities,
authors do not know reviewer identities.
3) Review Workflow (Typical)
Initial Screening: scope fit, formatting, anonymity, ethical completeness
Reviewer Assignment: based on expertise and conflict-of-interest checks
Review Reports: constructive feedback and recommendation
Editorial Decision: accept / minor revision / major revision / reject
Revision Rounds: authors respond with a detailed rebuttal
Final Decision: editorial synthesis of evidence and revisions
4) Reviewer Expectations
Reviewers must:
review only within their expertise,
respect confidentiality,
declare conflicts of interest,
provide objective, respectful, evidence-based feedback,
avoid using manuscript content for personal advantage.
5) Conflicts of Interest
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts. Authors may request exclusion of specific reviewers with reasonable justification.
6) Special Issues
Special issues follow the same ethical and review standards as regular issues. Guest editors may be appointed, but final accountability remains with IJEER’s editorial leadership.
7) Appeals and Re-Review
If an appeal is accepted, the editor may:
request additional reviews, or
re-evaluate the manuscript using independent expert judgment.