Peer Review Process

Expert in Science and Engineering (ESE) applies a single-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of all published articles. In this system, the reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while the reviewers’ identities remain confidential to the authors.

 

  1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office to assess:

  • Alignment with the scope of science and engineering
  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements
  • Ethical standards, including plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected or returned to the authors for correction before peer review.

 

  1. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications and research experience
  • Publication record in related fields
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

 

  1. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Scientific and engineering significance
  • Soundness of methodology and analysis
  • Clarity and quality of presentation
  • Validity of results and conclusions
  • Relevance to the scope and readership of ESE

 

  1. Review Outcomes

Each reviewer provides a detailed report and recommends one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and respectful feedback to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

 

  1. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes an editorial decision.
In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations, the editor may:

  • Request additional reviews, or
  • Make an independent decision based on academic judgment

Authors are notified of the decision along with anonymized reviewer comments.

 

  1. Revision and Re-Review

Authors must revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewer comments and submit:

  • A revised manuscript
  • A point-by-point response to reviewers

Revised manuscripts, particularly those requiring major revisions, may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

 

  1. Final Acceptance

Once the editor is satisfied that all reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed, the manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to copyediting and production.

 

  1. Confidentiality and Ethics

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must:

  • Declare any conflict of interest
  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript content
  • Refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage

 

  1. Review Timeline
  • Preliminary Editorial Assessment: 7 days
    Initial screening of manuscript scope, formatting, and ethical compliance.
  • Peer Review Process: 14–21 days
    Evaluation by independent expert reviewers focusing on scientific quality, originality, and relevance.
  • Publication After Acceptance: 14–21 days
    Copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and online publication.

 

The Peer Review Process of Expert in Science and Engineering (ESE) is designed to ensure fairness, transparency, academic rigor, and timely publication, supporting the advancement of high-quality research in science and engineering.