PEER Review Process

MJEER operates a double-blind peer-review system.  Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, and whether the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. MJEER journal is committed to providing an efficient service for both, authors, and readers. Our double-blind peer-review system along with the editorial board of independent editors provides a mean of rapid and fair publication decisions.

The following figure summarizes the peer review process adopted by MJEER journal:

 

1. Author Submits Article

The corresponding author submits the paper to the journal via an online EKB system.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s composition and style according to the journal’s Author Guidelines. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Editor-in-Chief (EIC) Assessment

The EIC checks if the paper is appropriate and within the scope of the journal. If not, the paper may be rejected before revision. Furthermore, the paper is checked for plagiarism using iThenticate plagiarism-checking software. Papers with an unacceptable similarity index resulting from plagiarism are rejected immediately.

4. EIC Assigns a Section Editor (SE)

The assigned section editor handle the peer review process.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

The SE sends invitations to two appropriate reviewers. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

6. Review is Conducted

The reviewer is expected to read the paper several times taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

7. SE Evaluates the Reviews

The section editor considers all the returned reviews. If the reviews differ widely, he/she will invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. Decision

The EIC sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the editor sends constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the section editor.

Manuscript can be rejected if it:

• Lacks proper structure, proper language quality and/or up-to-date references
• Lacks necessary details for readers to fully understand the authors' analysis
• Has no new contribution
• Does not clearly explain which parts of the findings are new, versus what was already known
• Contains theories, concepts, or conclusions that are not fully supported by its data, arguments, and information
• Does not provide enough details about materials and methods to allow other scientists to repeat the experiment
• Submitted manuscripts with an unacceptable similarity index resulting from plagiarism are rejected immediately.

For queries related to the journal, please contact: mjeer@el-eng.menofia.edu.eg