Home Journal Peer Review Process
Rigorous Quality Assurance

Peer Review Process

NIJES maintains an uncompromising double-blind peer-review system designed to evaluate scientific validity, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution without bias or conflict of interest.

Strict Double-Blind Model 15 Days to First Decision 30 Days Review Time 30–60 Weeks Publication

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

Protecting objectivity through mutual anonymity

Under our Double-Blind Peer Review model, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain concealed from each other throughout the entirety of the evaluation cycle. This guarantees that manuscript evaluations are rendered purely on intellectual merit, technical soundness, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Author Anonymity Requirements:

Authors must submit an anonymized version of the manuscript that removes all author names, affiliations, email addresses, funding recognitions, and self-identifying citations (e.g., replace "As we previously demonstrated [1]" with "As previously demonstrated [1]").

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

From initial submission to final DOI minting
01 Step

Initial Desk Screening & Plagiarism Check

Days 1 – 3

The Managing Editor checks the manuscript for conformity with journal guidelines, formatting, language quality, and scope fit. A thorough plagiarism scan is conducted via Turnitin/iThenticate. Submissions with similarity index > 15% or non-compliance are promptly desk-rejected or returned for correction.

02 Step

Section Editor & Reviewer Assignment

Days 4 – 7

The assigned Associate Editor evaluates the technical topic and invites a minimum of two independent domain experts who possess verified doctoral credentials and an active publication record in the subject area. Reviewers declare no conflict of interest before accepting the assignment.

03 Step

Double-Blind Expert Evaluation

Days 8 – 21

Reviewers conduct a deep technical critique of methodology, mathematical derivation, experimental data validity, literature relevance, and conclusions. Each reviewer submits a confidential editorial recommendation along with detailed constructive feedback for the authors.

04 Step

Editorial Decision & Author Revision

15 Days

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the reviewer reports and issues one of three formal decisions: Accept, Revise and resubmit, or Reject. There is no assurance of acceptance upon revision. Rejected submissions are not reconsidered.

05 Step

Final Editorial Acceptance & Production Proofs

Days 29 – 35

Upon satisfaction of all reviewer inquiries, a formal Letter of Acceptance is issued. The manuscript enters technical copyediting, XML tagging, and professional typesetting. Authors receive author galley proofs (PDF) for final typo and figure verification within 48 hours.

06 Step

Online Publication & Crossref DOI Minting

Days 36 – 40

The final version is officially published in the Current Issue with an active Crossref DOI, open-access licensing under CC BY 4.0, and metadata deposited into Google Scholar, Scilit, and partner indexing catalogs. Authors receive digital publication certificates.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Standard dimensions assessed by peer reviewers
Criterion Weight Evaluation Focus
Originality & Novelty 25% Does the paper introduce innovative concepts, algorithms, frameworks, or novel empirical findings?
Methodology & Soundness 30% Is the experimental design robust, reproducible, and mathematically or statistically validated?
Literature Context 15% Are recent relevant papers (last 3–5 years) appropriately cited and discussed in context?
Clarity & Presentation 15% Is the manuscript well-structured, logically argued, and accompanied by high-quality figures and tables?
Impact & Application 15% Does the work advance the discipline and offer practical, theoretical, or industrial relevance?

Appeals & Grievance Redressal

Fair hearing mechanism in adherence with COPE

Authors who believe an editorial decision was reached through a factual or technical error may submit a formal appeal within 14 days of receiving the decision. The appeal must clearly detail point-by-point factual evidence addressing the reviewers' comments.

Appeals are reviewed by an independent Senior Editor who was not involved in the initial evaluation. The decision of the Appeals Committee is final. To submit an appeal, write directly to appeals@nijes.org.