SUBMISSION

Collaborative Contribution to Peer Review

Reviewing journal manuscripts is a valued professional responsibility that significantly contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the relevant field. To foster a collaborative scholarly environment, authors who submit their work to InjET are expected to contribute in return by accepting invitations to review manuscripts.

Double Blind Review

InjET implements a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential and unknown to each other. This review model is a vital component of the scientific publishing system and plays a significant role in the dissemination of knowledge.

Reviewers are subject matter experts appointed by the Editor-in-Chief to objectively assess academic manuscripts. The primary aim is to enhance the quality of the research reporting and to identify relevant, high-quality manuscripts for publication in InjET.

Complete manuscripts will undergo evaluation through this double-blind peer review process, with the following expectations for reviewers:

1. Conduct evaluations in a fair, unbiased, and professional manner.

2. Avoid making personal remarks or referencing the identity or background of the authors.

3. Provide clear, well-reasoned justifications for all comments and recommendations.

4. Organize feedback systematically to help authors understand and improve their work.

5. Offer critiques constructively, with the goal of strengthening the manuscript’s academic quality and clarity.

Review Quality

All manuscripts submitted to InjET will undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Board to determine their relevance and potential interest to the journal’s readership. Manuscripts that comply with the submission guidelines and are properly formatted will proceed to the double-blind review stage, where one or two reviewers will be appointed. In certain cases, manuscripts may be referred to subject-matter experts—for example, in statistics or specialized methodologies—for more in-depth evaluation.

Reviewers are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief based on the quality of their assessments and other performance indicators, in order to uphold InjET's publication standards. These evaluations may also be taken into account when considering renewal of appointments to the Editorial Board or future reviewer invitations. Reviewer performance records are accessible only to the Editor-in-Chief and will be kept confidential. Reviewers must refrain from actions or remarks that could compromise their anonymity or reveal their identity to the manuscript authors.

While reviewers are encouraged to recommend actions (e.g., acceptance, revision, or rejection), the final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, particularly in cases where reviewers provide differing opinions. As such, reviewer reports serve as a critical basis for the Editor-in-Chief’s decision-making process.

All reviewers will receive comprehensive information on InjET’s review policies and their expected roles. The Editor-in-Chief will also offer ongoing support to enhance review quality. Structured and periodic evaluations of reviewer performance will be implemented as part of InjET’s quality assurance efforts.

Review Process Flow Chart

A comprehensive flow chart of the review process is provided to clearly outline the workflow of all Editorial Board members and the steps involved in the double-blind peer review. This is designed to guide authors, reviewers, and editorial members in understanding their respective responsibilities and the estimated timelines for each stage of manuscript evaluation and publication.