Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Engineering Education and Practice (JEEP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and academic integrity through a rigorous and transparent peer review process. This process is critical to ensuring that all manuscripts published in the journal contribute meaningful and high-quality research to the field of engineering education. Below is a detailed outline of JEEP’s peer review policy.

Key Aspects of the Peer Review Policy:

  1. Triple-Blind Peer Review:

    • JEEP uses a Triple-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This helps ensure impartial evaluation and minimizes bias, allowing reviewers to assess the manuscript solely based on its scientific and academic merit.

  2. Reviewer Selection:

    • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. The editorial team carefully matches the manuscript with qualified reviewers who have the relevant academic and professional background in engineering education.
    • JEEP ensures that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the content of the manuscript. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to evaluate a manuscript.

  3. Types of Reviews:

    • Original Research Articles: These are subjected to thorough peer review to assess the rigor of the research methodology, data analysis, and validity of the conclusions.
    • Review Articles: Review articles are evaluated for their comprehensiveness, relevance, and contribution to advancing knowledge in the field of engineering education.
    • Short Communications: Brief manuscripts that present novel ideas, findings, or observations are reviewed for their novelty and relevance to the field.

  4. Review Criteria:

    • Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following key criteria:
      • Scientific Quality: The validity of the research design, methodology, data analysis, and conclusions drawn from the research.
      • Relevance: The manuscript’s contribution to the field of engineering education and its alignment with the journal’s scope and objectives.
      • Originality: The novelty of the research, ideas, or concepts presented, and the potential for the work to advance the field of engineering education.
      • Clarity and Structure: The quality of writing, the organization of the manuscript, and the clarity of figures, tables, and references.
      • Ethical Standards: The manuscript’s adherence to ethical guidelines for research, including proper citation, human/animal welfare considerations, and disclosure of any conflicts of interest.

  5. Review Process:

    • Once a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team conducts an initial review to ensure that it meets the journal’s standards and scope. If appropriate, the manuscript is then sent to two or more independent reviewers for in-depth evaluation.
    • Reviewers are typically given 3 to 4 weeks to complete their evaluations. If reviewers request an extension, the editorial team will work with them to accommodate the timeline.

  6. Decision Making:

    • After the peer review process, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
      • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is or with minor revisions.
      • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes based on reviewer feedback, but the overall research is sound and worthy of publication.
      • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be reconsidered for publication. Authors will be given detailed feedback to make revisions.
      • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the standards for publication in JEEP or is outside the scope of the journal.
    • Authors will be informed of the decision along with the reviewers’ comments. If revisions are required, authors must resubmit the revised manuscript along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments.

  7. Timeliness:

    • JEEP strives for an efficient review process, with a typical time frame of 4 to 6 weeks from submission to the first decision. The editorial team works to ensure that all parties involved in the review process (authors, reviewers, editors) are kept informed of progress throughout.
    • Authors are encouraged to submit revisions promptly to avoid delays in the publication process.

  8. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers:

    • Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and detailed feedback that will help improve the quality of the manuscript.
    • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality about the manuscript they are reviewing and must not use any information from the manuscript for personal or professional gain.

  9. Post-Publication Review:

    • JEEP supports post-publication peer review, which encourages further scholarly discussion on published articles. The journal provides a platform for readers to submit comments, critiques, or insights regarding published articles.

  10. Handling of Ethical Violations:

    • Any allegations of research misconduct, such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical breaches, will be investigated by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's ethical guidelines.
    • If misconduct is identified, the manuscript will be rejected, and further actions, such as reporting to the author’s institution, may be taken.

By adhering to these peer review standards, JEEP ensures that it publishes high-quality, impactful research that contributes to the ongoing advancement of engineering education. The peer review process plays a critical role in maintaining the journal's academic integrity and ensuring the quality of the research published.