irjiest banner




EDITORIAL PROCEDURES

1. PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Upon receipt of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will send acknowledgement receipt to the authors via e-mail. The Editor-in-Chief will then send the manuscript to the Managing Editor who is in-charge of choosing two (2) Editorial Board members for the manuscript review. The selected editors will review the manuscript for its conformity to IRJIEST policies and standards. The reviewing editors then make a recommendation for acceptance, revision or declination based on the scientific merit and technical quality of the studies reported.

In the event that a manuscript fails to pass the screening review, it will be sent back to the author/s immediately and a notice of non-acceptance will be issued. For the manuscripts accepted in the screening review, the Editor-in-Chief will send the manuscript to the Managing Editor who shall select an expert reviewer to evaluate the manuscript. It will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
     Originality and Creativity
     Methodology

     Contribution to the Discipline   

     Writing Quality

To view the description of the evaluation criteria, please see Criteria for Paper Review.

A double blind review process will be utilized for all reviews. Reviewers are expected to give constructive, prompt and unbiased comments and suggestions. Reviewers make one of the following recommendations:

     1. Accept As Is
     2. Requires Minor Corrections

     3. Requires Moderate Revision

     4. Requires Major Revision

     5. Reject on grounds of (specific reason)

If the manuscript is recommended to be revised minimally, it will be returned to authors for revision and the revised manuscript should be sent back promptly. The Editor-in-Chief will finally decide whether to accept the manuscript for publication.

In the event that the manuscript cannot be revised and returned within three (3) months, the manuscript will be regarded as having been withdrawn.

 

2. MANUSCRIPT REVISION


For the revision of the manuscript after it has undergone the first round of review, authors are required to respond to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. This can be done by attaching to the revised manuscript the list of the recommendations/criticisms with the authors’ answer right after each recommendation/criticism. It is also encouraged that the author/s highlight or underline the parts of the manuscript that have been changed.

 

3. ACCEPTABILITY DECISION

Upon the receipt of the revised manuscript, the Managing Editor will judge if the revisions recommended by the members of the Editorial Board and reviewers are well incorporated in the resent manuscript. The Managing Editor may judge it as acceptable or if it is subject for further review process. The Managing Editor then forwards his/her judgment to the Editor-in-Chief who has the sole authority to make the final decision. Only the Editor-in-Chief has the authority to “Accept” or “Reject” a manuscript.

If a manuscript is “Accepted”, an Acceptance Certificate is issued to the author/s and the manuscripts are processed for publication. If a manuscript is rejected, the authors are informed of the decision and no further processing is done on the manuscript. If a manuscript requires improvement, it is sent to the author(s) with the editor’s recommendation for further revision. The Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision to “Accept” or “Reject” the revised manuscript.



Copyright © 2016 | International Research Journal on Innovations in Engineering, Science and Technology
Batangas State University
Leading Innovations, Transforming Lives