International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management (IJSREM) Peer Review Policy
1. Introduction
The International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management (IJSREM) is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that contributes significantly to the fields of engineering and management. To uphold the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific rigor, IJSREM employs a rigorous peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This policy outlines the principles and procedures governing the peer review process, ensuring fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct.
2. Purpose of Peer Review
The primary purposes of peer review at IJSREM are to:
Ensure Quality: Evaluate the scientific merit, originality, validity, and significance of the research.
Improve Manuscripts: Provide constructive feedback to authors, helping them to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and overall quality of their work.
Maintain Standards: Uphold the academic standards and reputation of the journal.
Prevent Plagiarism and Misconduct: Act as a critical gatekeeper against unethical practices.
3. Core Principles
IJSREM’s peer review process is guided by the following principles:
Fairness and Objectivity: All manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit, without bias towards the authors’ origin, gender, affiliation, or any other personal characteristic.
Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts and their content are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a manuscript before its publication.
Timeliness: The review process is conducted efficiently to minimize delays in publication, while ensuring thorough evaluation.
Transparency (where applicable): While the review process itself is confidential, the policy aims for clarity regarding the stages and criteria.
4. The Peer Review Process
IJSREM utilizes a double-blind peer review process, where both the authors’ identities are concealed from the reviewers, and the reviewers’ identities are concealed from the authors. This helps ensure impartial evaluation.
The process unfolds as follows:
4.1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their articles through the official IJSREM online submission form.
4.2. Initial Assessment & Plagiarism Check
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff conduct an initial assessment, which includes:
- Scope Check: Ensuring the manuscript falls within the journal’s aims and scope.
- Formatting Check: Verifying adherence to IJSREM’s submission guidelines.
- Plagiarism Detection: A thorough plagiarism check is performed using standard plagiarism detection tools. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain less than 10% similarity. Any manuscript exceeding this threshold will be desk-rejected immediately.
4.3. Internal Review (Editorial Review)
If the article passes the plagiarism check and initial assessment, it proceeds to an internal review by the editorial team. This stage evaluates the manuscript’s overall quality, methodology, and potential contribution to the field. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected without external review.
4.4. External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the internal review are sent for external peer review.
- Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers who are part of the IJSREM review panel or are recognized specialists in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, reputation, and lack of conflicts of interest.
- Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers are expected to:
- Evaluate the manuscript critically and constructively.
- Provide detailed, evidence-based feedback on the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
- Assess the originality, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.
- Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript.
- Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
- Complete the review within the stipulated timeframe.
- Review Outcomes: Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision. The possible outcomes include:
- Accept without Revision: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted, but requires minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Authors are asked to make these changes and resubmit the revised paper.
- Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires significant revisions. Authors are given a timeframe to address the reviewers’ comments comprehensively and resubmit. The revised manuscript may undergo further review.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is unsuitable for publication in IJSREM.
4.5. Author Revisions
For manuscripts requiring minor or major revisions, authors are provided with the reviewers’ comments (anonymized) and a deadline for resubmission. Authors are expected to address each comment systematically, explaining how they have revised the manuscript or providing a clear rebuttal where they disagree.
4.6. Final Decision & Notification
Once the revised manuscript is received (if applicable), it is re-evaluated by the editorial team and, if necessary, by the original reviewers. If the revisions are satisfactory and the article is accepted, a confirmation email will be sent to the author regarding the acceptance and the next steps. If the article fails to meet the required standards after revisions, or if the initial review leads to rejection, a rejection email will be sent, stating the issues with the article.
Addressing Review Speed: How Our 2-Day Review Process is Achieved
The International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management (IJSREM) is committed to not only rigorous quality but also efficient dissemination of cutting-edge research. We understand that a 2-day review timeframe might seem exceptionally rapid, and we want to transparently explain how we achieve this without compromising the thoroughness or integrity of our peer review process.
Our ability to complete initial reviews within 2 days stems from a combination of strategic operational efficiencies and dedicated resources:
Pre-vetted, Engaged Reviewer Pool: We have cultivated and maintain a large, active, and pre-qualified database of expert reviewers. These specialists in various engineering and management disciplines are renowned for their expertise and have a proven track record of providing timely, high-quality reviews for IJSREM. They are fully aware of and committed to our expedited review timelines, enabling swift turnaround.
Streamlined and Automated Internal Workflows: Our editorial office leverages an advanced online manuscript management system that automates many administrative tasks. Upon submission, the initial assessment (scope, formatting, and critical plagiarism checks) is conducted almost instantly. Articles that clear this initial hurdle are immediately matched and assigned to the most suitable reviewers from our ready pool, minimizing any waiting periods.
Clear, Concise, and Focused Reviewer Guidelines: Reviewers receive precise, actionable guidelines that focus their evaluation on the core scientific merit, originality, methodology, and conclusions of the manuscript. This clarity helps them to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback efficiently, without spending unnecessary time on peripheral aspects.
Optimized Communication Channels: Our integrated platform facilitates seamless and immediate communication between authors, editors, and reviewers. This ensures that manuscripts are dispatched swiftly, feedback is received promptly, and decisions are communicated without delay.
Targeted Reviewer Assignments: Our Team intelligently matches manuscripts with reviewers whose expertise precisely aligns with the article's subject matter. This targeted approach means reviewers can quickly understand the submitted content and provide an informed assessment without extensive preliminary research.
While our timeframe is swift, the foundational principles of our double-blind peer review—impartiality, scientific merit, confidentiality, and constructive feedback—remain absolutely paramount. The 2-day target refers to the initial assessment and recommendations from our reviewers, designed to accelerate the overall publication cycle for high-quality, impactful research in our fields. We prioritize maintaining the highest academic standards while ensuring research reaches the scientific community as quickly as possible.
“Note: While we aim to complete peer review within 24–48 hours, timelines may vary based on reviewer availability and article complexity. Our priority is to maintain quality and fairness in the review process.”
5. Article Processing Charges (APCs)
IJSREM is an open-access journal, and as such, incurs costs associated with manuscript processing, peer review management, editing, production, and online hosting.
Payment Requirement: Authors are required to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC) only after their article has successfully passed the peer review process, undergone any necessary revisions, and received a final acceptance notification from the journal.
Workflow: Once the processing fee has been received, the workflow for page editing, drafting, page setup, and other relevant production work will commence.
No Influence on Review: The payment of APCs has absolutely no influence on the peer review process or the editorial decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Editorial decisions are made solely based on the scientific merit and quality of the research.
6. Ethical Considerations
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers and editors must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their judgment. If a conflict exists, the reviewer will be recused.
Confidentiality: All individuals involved in the peer review process (editors, reviewers, editorial staff) are required to treat submitted manuscripts and their content as strictly confidential.
Author Appeals: Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision by providing a detailed justification for their appeal. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or a designated editorial board member whose decision will be final.
Research Integrity: IJSREM adheres to best practices in research integrity and will investigate any allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes) in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
7. Reviewer Guidelines
Detailed guidelines for reviewers, including criteria for evaluation and ethical responsibilities, are provided separately to all invited reviewers.
8. Policy Review
This peer review policy is subject to periodic review and revision by the IJSREM editorial board to ensure it remains current with best practices in scholarly publishing.
Last Updated: 08th July 2025 at 12:20 PM
