Peer-Review Process
The peer-review process in our journal is conducted with the highest standards of transparency, impartiality, confidentiality, and ethical publishing, fully aligned with the requirements of Scopus-indexed journals. The process incorporates the following key editorial roles: Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, Editor, and Reviewer.
1. Submission and Initial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief for completeness, the scope of the journal, and basic compliance with ethical and formatting standards.
If the manuscript does not fall within the journal’s scope or fails to meet fundamental requirements, it may be rejected at this stage without external review.
2. Assignment to Editor
Manuscripts deemed suitable are then assigned to a relevant Editor (typically an Associate or Section Editor, who is a member of the Editorial Board).
The Editor conducts an initial quality assessment and may screen for plagiarism using standard tools.
3. Selection of Reviewers
The Editor, in consultation with the Editorial Board if necessary, selects at least two independent and qualified Reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
All potential conflicts of interest are screened at this stage to ensure objectivity and fairness.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
Reviewers are invited to provide impartial, constructive, and timely feedback based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and clarity of the manuscript.
The editorial office ensures full confidentiality throughout the process.
5. Editorial Decision
Upon receiving the reviewers’ reports, the assigned Editor evaluates the feedback and makes a preliminary recommendation (accept, minor/major revision, or reject).
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult the Editorial Board in complex or borderline cases.
Authors are notified of the decision and provided with anonymized reviewer comments and any required revisions.
6. Revision and Final Assessment
If revisions are requested, authors must revise their manuscript accordingly and resubmit within the specified timeframe.
The revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers or, at the Editor’s discretion, by new reviewers.
The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
Ethics and Integrity: The Editor-in-Chief, Editors, and Editorial Board oversee adherence to ethical guidelines, handling allegations of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and authorship issues in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards.
This rigorous and transparent workflow ensures the highest level of scientific integrity and scholarly excellence in every manuscript published by the Journal of Industrial Engineering International.
Peer-Review Process and Timeline
- Initial editorial screening: 2–4 days
- Peer-review process: 25–60 days
- Publication after acceptance: 70–90 days