Latest News    IJSPR Volume 54, December 2018 Edition Published Successfully.         Call for Papers: December 2018    IJSPR Inviting Original Research Papers for Volume 54, December 2018 Edition.

Peer Review Policy

All papers received will be submitted to a peer review process. The Editors may discard some manuscripts from the outright due to notorious low quality or disadjustment with the journal's scope.

Taking in consideration its subjects, the papers passing this preliminary screening will be remitted to a panel of referees involved in those research areas. They can be either external or members of the Advisory Board, though always chosen by their recognized expertise. Each paper will be reviewed by two referees.

After evaluation, the referees will produce reports about the works reviewed, by which the papers can be a) accepted with modifications or corrections; b) approved as they are or c) rejected from the start. In case that the papers proposed are accepted but in need of modifications or corrections, the Editors will return the manuscripts to the authors, together with the referee's reports and all the suggestions, recommendations and comments therein.

To secure impartiality during the review process, all papers, as remitted to the referees, will be anonymous. Moreover, the referees' identities will not be known, neither by the rest of the evaluation panel, nor by the authors.

The final decision concerning the publication of papers belongs to the Editorial Board, having the referees a consultative role.

Reviewer Guidelines

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor. IJETAE shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.