Reviewer Guidelines
Welcome, Reviewer!
Thank you for your willingness to serve as a peer reviewer for IJOER. Your expertise and constructive feedback are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of the engineering literature. These guidelines will help you understand your role, responsibilities, and best practices for conducting a thorough and fair review.
Guidelines Navigation
1. Role of a Peer Reviewer
As a peer reviewer for IJOER, you serve as a critical gatekeeper for the engineering literature. Your primary responsibilities include:
Assess Quality
Evaluate the scientific rigor, methodology, and validity of the research
Provide Feedback
Offer constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript
Ensure Integrity
Identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, or misconduct
2. Before Accepting a Review Invitation
When you receive a review invitation, carefully consider the following questions before accepting:
| Question to Ask | Action if Answer is "No" |
|---|---|
| Is this within my expertise? | Decline promptly and suggest alternative reviewers if possible |
| Can I complete it on time? | Decline or request an extension before accepting |
| Do I have any conflict of interest? | Decline and inform the editor of the conflict |
| Can I provide an objective review? | Decline if personal or professional bias exists |
3. Evaluation Criteria for IJOER
When reviewing a manuscript for IJOER, please evaluate the following aspects:
Scientific & Technical Quality
- Originality: Does the work present novel findings or approaches?
- Significance: Is the research important to the field of engineering?
- Methodology: Is the study design appropriate and well-executed?
- Validity: Are the conclusions supported by the data?
- Reproducibility: Is there sufficient detail to replicate the study?
- Literature Review: Is relevant prior work cited appropriately?
Presentation & Clarity
- Structure: Does the manuscript follow IMRaD format?
- Clarity: Is the writing clear, concise, and understandable?
- Figures & Tables: Are they clear, necessary, and well-labeled?
- Language: Is the English of sufficient quality?
- Length: Is the manuscript appropriately concise?
- References: Are they current, relevant, and properly formatted?
Ethical Compliance
- Plagiarism: Is the work original? Plagiarism policy
- Authorship: Are all authors appropriately credited? Authorship policy
- Conflicts: Are conflicts of interest declared? COI policy
- Ethics Approval: Was proper approval obtained for human/animal research?
- Data Integrity: Is there any evidence of data manipulation?
Scope & Relevance
- Journal Scope: Does the manuscript fit IJOER's aim and scope?
- Audience Interest: Will this work interest IJOER's readers?
- Practical Implications: Are there clear engineering applications?
- Advancement: Does it advance the field meaningfully?
4. How to Review: Step-by-Step Guide
Detailed Steps:
- First Read (10-15 minutes): Read the abstract, introduction, and conclusions to understand the research question and main findings. Decide if the manuscript is within your expertise.
- Second Read (1-2 hours): Read thoroughly, evaluating methodology, results, and discussion. Check for technical accuracy and logical flow.
- Take Organized Notes: Separate your notes into major concerns (that affect scientific validity) and minor concerns (grammar, formatting, clarity).
- Write Your Report: Structure your feedback as outlined in Section 5 below. Be specific, constructive, and respectful.
- Make Your Recommendation: Select one of the decision options in Section 6 and provide a clear rationale.
5. Structure of a High-Quality Review Report
Recommended Review Report Template
Briefly restate the research question, methodology, and main findings. Show the authors you understood their work.
Address significant issues affecting scientific validity, methodology, or interpretation. Be specific and provide suggestions for improvement.
Address grammar, formatting, figure clarity, missing references, and other minor improvements.
Share concerns not appropriate for authors (e.g., suspected misconduct, unreviewable manuscript).
Clearly state your recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject).
Example: Constructive Feedback
"The methodology section lacks detail about the sample size calculation. Please explain how the sample size was determined and provide justification for the statistical power of the study."
"Figure 3 is difficult to interpret. Consider using different colors or adding labels to each data series for clarity."
Example: Unconstructive Feedback
"The methodology is wrong. This is not how you do this type of research."
"Figure 3 is terrible. Fix it."
6. Review Recommendations
| Recommendation | When to Use | Typical % |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript is scientifically sound, well-written, and requires no further changes. Rare for first submission. | <5% |
| Minor Revisions | Manuscript is sound but needs small corrections (grammar, formatting, clarifying text). No additional experiments needed. | 30-40% |
| Major Revisions | Manuscript has potential but requires significant changes (methodology clarification, additional analysis, rewriting sections). | 40-50% |
| Reject | Manuscript has fatal flaws, is out of scope, lacks originality, or has major ethical issues. | 15-20% |
7. Confidentiality Obligations
You MAY:
- Discuss the manuscript with the editor
- Consult colleagues with editor's permission
- Keep personal records of your review
You MAY NOT:
- Share the manuscript with anyone without permission
- Use manuscript content for your own research
- Upload to AI tools (ChatGPT, etc.) - AI policy
- Contact the authors directly
- Discuss the manuscript on social media
8. Conflict of Interest (COI)
A conflict of interest exists when personal, financial, or professional considerations may bias your evaluation. You must decline review invitations if any COI exists:
Personal: Family, close friends, romantic relationships
Financial: Stock ownership, patents, consulting
Professional: Recent collaborators, students, competitors
9. Timelines & Deadlines
Weeks to complete review
Standard timelineHours to respond to invitation
Accept or declineDays extension available
Request before deadline10. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
DO:
- Decline reviews outside your expertise
- Disclose all conflicts of interest
- Maintain strict confidentiality
- Provide constructive, respectful feedback
- Meet deadlines or request extensions
- Report suspected misconduct to the editor
DO NOT:
- Use AI (ChatGPT, etc.) to write reviews
- Share manuscripts without permission
- Contact authors directly
- Use manuscript content for personal gain
- Coerce authors to cite your work
- Allow bias to influence your evaluation
11. Frequently Asked Questions
12. Contact Information
Editorial Office
For review inquiries:
info@ijoer.com
Alternate Email:
info.ijoer@gmail.com
Response Time: Within 48 hours on business days
Ready to Join Our Reviewer Community?
Apply to become an IJOER reviewer and contribute to the quality of engineering research while enjoying recognition and benefits.