Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
The NIU Journal of Intelligent Engineering Systems and Emerging Technologies follows a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and ethically sound research. The process is designed to maintain fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation.
Each manuscript undergoes multiple stages of evaluation before final publication, as outlined below:
Upon submission, all manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial office to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards. This stage also includes plagiarism screening and verification of completeness (e.g., references, declarations, and metadata). Manuscripts that do not meet the basic criteria may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected at this stage without further review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate Editor or Associate Editor based on the subject area and expertise. The assigned editor conducts a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal. At this stage, the editor decides whether the manuscript should proceed to external peer review or be declined.
Qualified and independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field are carefully selected by the editor. Typically, at least two reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest to ensure unbiased evaluation.
The journal follows a double-blind review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. This ensures impartiality and minimizes bias during the evaluation process. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field.
After thorough evaluation, reviewers provide detailed comments and constructive feedback to improve the manuscript. They recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Major revision required (revise and resubmit)
- Reject
These recommendations are based on the scientific quality, validity of methodology, and significance of the findings.
The Editor reviews the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and makes a final decision regarding the manuscript. The decision may include acceptance, request for revision, or rejection. The editor ensures that the decision is fair, consistent, and aligned with the journal’s standards and policies.
If revisions are required, authors are requested to revise their manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. Authors must provide a detailed response to each comment, explaining the changes made or justifying any deviations. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review until the reviewers and editor are satisfied.
Once the manuscript meets all scientific, ethical, and editorial standards, it is formally accepted for publication. The final decision is communicated to the authors along with any final requirements prior to production.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, where they undergo copyediting, formatting, and proofreading to ensure clarity, consistency, and accuracy. Authors are provided with proofs to review and approve before final publication. After approval, the article is published online and included in the journal issue.
