Review Policy

The International Journal of Cutting-Edge Technologies in Science, Engineering and Management (ICETSEM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and publication quality. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous, fair, and unbiased peer review process to ensure the originality, significance, and scientific contribution of the research.

1. Type of Peer Review: ICETSEM follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system:

  • The identities of authors are hidden from reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are hidden from authors.

This ensures an impartial and unbiased evaluation.

2. Review Process Overview

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening: After submission, each manuscript is screened by the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor to check:

  • Relevance to journal scope
  • Originality and contribution
  • Compliance with author guidelines
  • Ethical considerations and plagiarism check
  • Basic scientific soundness

Manuscripts failing initial screening may be rejected without external review.

Step 2: Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to two independent expert reviewers from the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Expertise in the subject area
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Previous review performance and reliability

Step 3: Reviewers’ Evaluation: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Relevance and contribution to the field
  • Technical quality and methodology
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Validity of results and conclusions
  • Adequacy of references
  • Ethical conduct and data integrity

Reviewers make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

Step 4: Author Revision: If revisions are required:

  • Authors must respond to each reviewer comment point-by-point.
  • Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within the given time frame.
  • The revised version may be re-evaluated by reviewers or the editor.

Step 5: Final Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on:

  • Reviewers’ comments and recommendations
  • Quality of revisions
  • Overall contribution to the journal's mission

The final decision may be:

  • Accept for Publication
  • Minor or Major Revision
  • Reject

The decision is communicated to the authors through the OJS submission system.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers must:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback
  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript
  • Disclose any conflict of interest
  • Avoid using content from the manuscript for personal gain
  • Evaluate scientific merit, not personal views

4. Editorial Responsibilities: Editors must ensure:

  • A fair, unbiased, and transparent review process
  • Confidentiality of submissions
  • Avoidance of conflicts of interest
  • Decisions based solely on academic merit
  • Ethical handling of complaints and disputes

5. Conflict of Interest: Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose:

  • Financial, institutional, or personal conflicts
  • Collaborations with co-authors
  • Competitive or rival research relationships

If conflicts exist, editors will reassign reviewers as needed.

6. Plagiarism and Ethical Compliance: All submissions undergo a plagiarism check before review. Manuscripts with excessive similarity, unethical practices, or manipulated data will be rejected. The journal follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

7. Appeals and Complaints: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing:

  • A detailed justification
  • Evidence or clarification addressing reviewer comments

The editorial board will re-evaluate the case, and the decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

8. Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers and editors must not share, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript outside the review process.