At Emerging Trends in Engineering and Sustainability (ETES), the peer review process is central to maintaining the quality, integrity, and academic rigor of published research. Reviewers are expected to approach each assignment with professionalism, objectivity, and respect for confidentiality.
If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate a manuscript—whether due to lack of subject expertise, potential conflicts of interest, or time constraints—it is strongly encouraged and highly appreciated that they promptly decline the review invitation with a courteous note of apology. Timely communication ensures that the editorial process proceeds efficiently.
Reviewer reports should offer a thorough, balanced, and constructive assessment of the manuscript. Brief or superficial comments are insufficient; instead, reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed feedback that addresses the manuscript’s originality, methodology, clarity, significance, and contribution to the field. Constructive criticism should be framed to help authors improve their work, even when the recommendation is for rejection.
In the event of a recommendation to reject, reviewers should clearly outline the principal reasons for their decision, identify major limitations or weaknesses in the submission, and, where applicable, suggest relevant literature or directions for improvement.
Importantly, all materials under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share the manuscript, discuss its content with others, or use any part of it for personal advantage. Upholding confidentiality and ethical responsibility is vital to preserving the integrity of the peer review process and the trust placed in reviewers by the scholarly community.
Peer-Review Process
The Emerging Trends in Engineering and Sustainability (ETES) journal follows a structured and rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, relevance, and integrity of all published research. The workflow is outlined as follows:
- Submission of Manuscript: Authors submit their manuscripts via the ETES online submission system.
- Preliminary Screening and Plagiarism Check:
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary screening to assess compliance with submission guidelines and journal scope. A plagiarism check is conducted using reliable detection tools.
- The similarity index must be less than 20%, and
- No more than 5% similarity should come from a single source.
- Additionally, artificial intelligence-generated content must be either marked as “*”or 0% to ensure originality.
- Initial Review (Editor): The editorial team evaluates the scientific merit, structure, language, and relevance of the manuscript. Manuscripts that meet preliminary criteria are moved forward.
- Editorial Decision –Reject or Review:
- If unsuitable, the manuscript is rejected.
- If minor issues are found, it may be sent back to the author for revision.
- Suitable manuscripts proceed to the peer-review stage.
- Reviewing Process: The manuscript is assigned to expert reviewers in the field who assess it based on originality, technical soundness, clarity, contribution to knowledge, and overall quality.
- Reviewer Decision and Editor’s Assessment:
- Reviewers provide feedback and recommendations (Accept, Revise, Reject).
- Based on the reviews, the editor may:
- Request revisions/resubmission
- Reject the manuscript
- Accept the manuscript
- Revision and Resubmission:
- Authors revise the manuscript according to reviewer/editor comments and resubmit.
- Revised submissions may undergo additional review cycles.
- Final Decision and Copyediting:
- Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting.
- At this stage, a final check for plagiarism and artificial intelligence content is performed to confirm compliance:
- Plagiarism must still be <20%, with no more than 5% from any one source.
- AI-generated content should remain at "*" or 0%.
- Publication and Archival:
The final, formatted manuscript is published and archived for permanent access.
This peer-review model ensures all submissions are ethically sound, original, and aligned with ETES’s commitment to excellence in engineering and sustainability research.
Reviewer Responsibility
- Confidentiality
- Reviewers should treat the manuscript and any associated data as confidential.
- Reviewers should not share or discuss the content with anyone outside the review process.
- Reviewers should not use information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
- Conflict of Interest
- Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest that may influence your objectivity (e.g., personal, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationships with the authors).
- If a conflict exists, decline the review.
- Timeliness
- Reviewers should accept the review only if you can meet the deadline.
- If you cannot complete the review on time, reviewers should notify the editor promptly so they can reassign it.
- Objectivity and Constructiveness
- Reviewers should provide an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation.
- Reviewers should focus on the scientific merit, clarity, and originality of the work.
- Reviewers should avoid personal criticism; comments should be constructive and respectful.
- Reviewers should suggest improvements where applicable (e.g., methods, analysis, language, structure).
- Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are typically asked to assess the following:
- Originality: Is the work novel and does it advance the field?
- Relevance: Is the topic within the scope of the journal?
- Scientific Quality: Are methods and data analysis appropriate and well-explained?
- Clarity: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?
- References: Are the citations current and appropriate?
- Figures/Tables: Are visuals relevant, accurate, and necessary?
- Plagiarism and Ethical Concerns
- Reviewers should alert the editor if you detect:
- Possible plagiarism
- Duplicate publication
- Fabrication or falsification of data
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Report suspicion confidentially, with as much detail as possible.
- AI-Generated Content
- Reviewers should flag any signs of AI-generated content that lacks proper disclosure or human oversight.
- Reviewers should report instances where content appears generic, lacks depth, or shows stylistic anomalies.
- Recommendation
- Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation to the editor, typically choosing from:
- Accept
- Minor revisions
- Major revisions
- Reject
- Justify your decision with evidence from the manuscript.
- Anonymity
- Reviewers should maintain their own anonymity.
- Language and Presentation
- If the manuscript has language issues, reviewers may suggest language editing but should not penalize it if the scientific content is sound.
- Reviewers should point out unclear sections, poor structure, or jargon that impairs readability.
Generative AI Policy
The peer-review process requires human judgment, critical analysis, and ethical responsibility—elements that cannot be delegated to generative AI or AI-assisted technologies. These tools are currently incapable of reliably evaluating scientific rigor, and their outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased. Moreover, the handling of submitted manuscripts is governed by strict confidentiality, which generative AI systems cannot guarantee.
In line with these considerations, Emerging Trends in Engineering and Sustainability (ETES) maintains the following policy for editors and reviewers: under no circumstances should any portion of a submitted manuscript be uploaded to generative AI platforms. Such actions may compromise the confidentiality of the content and infringe upon the authors' proprietary rights or data privacy. Additionally, this practice may violate the terms of service of the AI platform itself.
This confidentiality mandate applies equally to peer review reports, editorial decision letters, and any related correspondence, as these may contain sensitive or identifying information about the manuscript or its authors.
Generative AI must not be used for language enhancement, content evaluation, or any aspect of the editorial or peer review process. All assessments must be conducted solely by qualified human experts to preserve the integrity, confidentiality, and ethical standards of scientific publishing.