Our peer review process is integral to ensuring the quality and integrity of the research we publish. This page outlines our peer review procedures and the principles guiding our review process.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process at IOJET is designed to evaluate the quality, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. We adhere to a double-blind review model to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

• Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through our online submission system. Each submission is accompanied by a cover letter, including a statement of originality and any potential conflicts of interest.
• Initial Screening: The editorial team conducts an initial review to assess whether the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal and meets basic quality and format requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors without peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

• Double-Blind Review: IEJEE employs a double-blind review process where both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential. This process helps to minimize bias and ensures that the evaluation is based solely on the content of the manuscript.
• Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts are sent to expert reviewers who are selected based on their expertise and knowledge in the relevant field. Reviewers are chosen to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript's scientific rigor, originality, and contribution to environmental education.
• Review Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on several criteria, including:
  • Originality and significance of the research.
  • Quality and clarity of the methodology.
  • Validity and reliability of the results.
  • Relevance and impact of the conclusions.
  • Overall presentation, including adherence to journal guidelines and formatting.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Impartiality: Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts impartially and provide constructive feedback. They should disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from reviewing if they have a potential bias.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and not disclose details to third parties. They should not use information from the manuscript for personal gain.
• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the specified timeframe to ensure a timely decision-making process.

4. Decision-Making

• Reviewer Feedback: Based on the reviews, the editorial team makes a decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions are:
  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions based on reviewer comments. Authors are given a deadline to submit the revised manuscript.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions. Authors are provided with detailed feedback and given a deadline to address the comments and resubmit.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form. Authors are provided with feedback explaining the reasons for rejection.

5. Revision and Resubmission

• Revised Manuscripts: Authors must address all reviewer comments and provide a detailed response outlining how they have revised the manuscript. Revised manuscripts are often sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
• Appeals: Authors who wish to appeal a decision may submit a formal appeal request. The appeal should include a clear explanation of why the decision should be reconsidered, addressing specific points raised by the reviewers.

6. Ethical Considerations

• Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication: All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism and duplicate publication. Manuscripts that are found to have significant issues with plagiarism or overlapping content with other publications will be rejected.
• Ethical Conduct: Reviewers and authors are expected to adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct. Any suspected unethical behavior or misconduct should be reported to the editorial office.