Peer Review Policy | GJETA

👨‍⚖️ Peer Review Policy | Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA)

🎯 Purpose of the Peer Review Policy

The purpose of this Peer Review Policy is to establish a clear, transparent, and consistent framework for evaluating submitted manuscripts. The policy helps authors understand how editorial decisions are made, informs reviewers of their professional responsibilities, and demonstrates the journal's commitment to objective scholarly assessment.

An effective peer review process benefits the entire research community by improving manuscript quality, identifying technical or methodological concerns, strengthening research reporting, and ensuring that published articles meet appropriate academic and ethical standards. GJETA believes that constructive peer review supports both scientific advancement and responsible scholarly communication.

🌍 Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process at GJETA is designed to evaluate manuscripts fairly and independently while helping authors improve the quality of their research. Editorial decisions are based on academic merit rather than personal, institutional, commercial, or geographical considerations.

The principal objectives of peer review include:

• assessing the originality and novelty of submitted research;
• evaluating scientific, technical, and methodological quality;
• confirming that research conclusions are supported by the presented evidence;
• identifying weaknesses, inconsistencies, or areas requiring clarification;
• improving the clarity, structure, presentation, and readability of manuscripts;
• verifying the relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope;
• supporting ethical and responsible scholarly publishing;
• assisting editors in making informed publication decisions.

⚖️ GJETA Peer Review Model

The Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) uses an independent peer review process to evaluate manuscripts that successfully complete the initial editorial screening. Qualified reviewers with appropriate subject expertise are invited to assess the scholarly quality, technical accuracy, originality, significance, and presentation of the submitted work.

Depending on the manuscript type, subject area, and editorial requirements, one or more independent reviewers may be invited to evaluate the manuscript. Additional reviewers may be consulted whenever further technical expertise or clarification is required to support an informed editorial decision.

Reviewer recommendations provide valuable expert advice to the editorial team; however, reviewer comments are advisory in nature. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection remains the responsibility of the journal editors.

📝 Editorial Screening Before Peer Review

Every manuscript submitted to GJETA undergoes an initial editorial assessment before it is considered for external peer review. This preliminary evaluation helps determine whether the submission satisfies the journal's minimum editorial, technical, and ethical requirements.

Editorial screening enables the journal to identify manuscripts that are suitable for detailed scientific evaluation while reducing unnecessary delays for authors whose submissions require correction or are outside the journal's scope.

🔍 Initial Editorial Assessment

During the initial assessment, editors may evaluate several aspects of the submitted manuscript, including:

• relevance to the aims and scope of GJETA;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• overall organization and scientific presentation;
• compliance with manuscript preparation guidelines;
• language quality and clarity of communication;
• completeness of figures, tables, references, and supplementary information where applicable;
• ethical declarations, approvals, and author information;
• basic research integrity and publication ethics requirements.

Editorial screening is not intended to replace external peer review. Instead, it helps ensure that manuscripts entering the peer review process are appropriate for detailed academic evaluation and meet the journal's fundamental submission requirements.

❌ Manuscripts That May Not Proceed to Peer Review

A manuscript may be returned to the authors for revision, declined during editorial screening, or rejected before peer review if significant concerns are identified. Early editorial decisions help maintain an efficient review process while ensuring that reviewers receive manuscripts that are suitable for expert evaluation.

Examples of situations where a manuscript may not proceed to external peer review include:

• the manuscript falls outside the journal's engineering, technology, applied science, or interdisciplinary research scope;
• the submission lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution;
• major formatting or manuscript preparation requirements have not been followed;
• essential sections, declarations, figures, tables, or references are missing;
• the language quality prevents meaningful scientific evaluation;
• substantial ethical concerns or publication integrity issues are identified during editorial screening;
• the manuscript appears to have been submitted simultaneously to another journal;
• required ethical approvals, permissions, or declarations are absent where applicable;
• the manuscript contains significant technical deficiencies that prevent effective peer review.

Where appropriate, editors may invite authors to revise and resubmit the manuscript after addressing the identified issues. Editorial screening decisions are made to support an efficient, fair, and high-quality peer review process while maintaining the journal's academic standards.

👥 Reviewer Selection Process

The Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) carefully selects reviewers with appropriate academic qualifications, research experience, technical expertise, and subject knowledge relevant to the submitted manuscript. The objective is to ensure that every manuscript receives an independent, objective, and technically competent evaluation.

Reviewer selection is based on factors such as research specialization, publication record, previous reviewing experience, professional expertise, and the absence of significant conflicts of interest. Editors may invite reviewers from universities, research institutions, industry, government organizations, or other recognized academic and professional organizations.

When appropriate, editors may invite additional reviewers to obtain broader technical expertise, resolve differing reviewer opinions, or evaluate highly specialized research topics. The number of reviewers assigned may vary depending on the complexity and nature of the manuscript.

📋 Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

Before accepting a review invitation, prospective reviewers should consider whether they possess sufficient expertise, can complete the review within the requested timeframe, and have no conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers who are unable to complete the review promptly or who believe they cannot provide an objective evaluation should decline the invitation as early as possible. This allows the editorial office to identify an alternative reviewer without unnecessary delay.

🧑‍⚖️ Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of research published by GJETA. Reviewer recommendations assist editors in making informed editorial decisions while helping authors improve the quality, clarity, and impact of their manuscripts.

✔ Conduct Objective Reviews

Reviews should focus exclusively on the scientific quality, technical accuracy, originality, methodology, presentation, interpretation of results, and contribution of the manuscript. Personal opinions regarding the authors, institutions, nationality, gender, or professional background must not influence the review.

✔ Provide Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be respectful, professional, and sufficiently detailed to help authors strengthen their manuscript. Recommendations should identify strengths, explain weaknesses, and suggest practical improvements whenever possible.

✔ Maintain Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, copy, discuss, or use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive purposes.

✔ Declare Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should immediately notify the editor if any personal, financial, institutional, collaborative, or competitive relationship may compromise their independence. When a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

✔ Complete Reviews Promptly

Timely peer review contributes to efficient editorial processing and faster communication with authors. Reviewers who anticipate delays should promptly inform the editorial office so that suitable arrangements can be made.

✔ Report Ethical Concerns

If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated images, fabricated data, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, or other publication integrity concerns, they should confidentially notify the editor and provide supporting observations where appropriate.

👨‍💼 Responsibilities of Editors During Peer Review

Editors supervise the peer review process to ensure fairness, consistency, confidentiality, and editorial independence. They are responsible for selecting suitable reviewers, evaluating reviewer reports, communicating with authors, and making publication decisions based on the overall merits of the manuscript.

✔ Fair Reviewer Selection

Editors should appoint reviewers with relevant expertise while avoiding unnecessary conflicts of interest. Reviewer selection should support balanced and technically sound manuscript evaluation.

✔ Independent Editorial Decisions

Editors carefully consider reviewer comments, but reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the final decision. Editorial judgement remains independent and is based on the overall academic quality, originality, technical merit, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript.

✔ Confidential Handling of Manuscripts

Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer identities where applicable, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research throughout the review process.

✔ Clear Communication with Authors

Editors should provide authors with reviewer comments, revision requests, editorial decisions, and other communications in a professional, constructive, and timely manner.

✔ Ethical Oversight

Editors are responsible for investigating publication ethics concerns that arise during peer review and may request clarification, supporting documentation, or additional expert evaluation whenever necessary.

✍️ Responsibilities of Authors During Peer Review

Authors are expected to cooperate fully with the peer review process and respond professionally to editorial communications. Constructive interaction between authors, reviewers, and editors contributes to higher-quality scholarly publications.

✔ Respond to Reviewer Comments Carefully

Authors should address reviewer comments thoroughly and explain any revisions made to the manuscript. When an author disagrees with a reviewer recommendation, the response should be supported by clear scientific reasoning and appropriate evidence.

✔ Submit Revised Manuscripts Promptly

Revised manuscripts should be submitted within the requested timeframe whenever possible. If additional time is required, authors should notify the editorial office before the revision deadline.

✔ Preserve Research Integrity

Authors must not introduce fabricated information, manipulate data, alter conclusions without justification, or modify images in a misleading manner while preparing revised versions of the manuscript.

✔ Maintain Confidentiality

Editorial correspondence and reviewer comments are intended solely for the peer review process. Authors should treat these communications responsibly and professionally.

🔒 Confidentiality During Peer Review

Confidentiality is a fundamental principle of the peer review process. Submitted manuscripts contain unpublished scholarly work and should be protected throughout editorial evaluation.

Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and all individuals involved in manuscript handling are expected to preserve the confidentiality of:

• submitted manuscripts;
• review reports;
• editorial correspondence;
• author information;
• reviewer information where applicable;
• unpublished data, figures, methods, software, technical designs, and research findings.

Information obtained through peer review must not be disclosed, reproduced, distributed, or used for personal research, commercial activities, competitive advantage, or any purpose unrelated to editorial evaluation without appropriate authorization.

⚠️ Conflict of Interest During Peer Review

Maintaining an unbiased review process requires all participants to disclose circumstances that could reasonably influence—or appear to influence—their professional judgement.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise from:

• recent research collaboration;
• institutional affiliation;
• financial relationships;
• consultancy or advisory roles;
• patent ownership;
• personal relationships;
• academic competition;
• employment or supervisory relationships.

Reviewers should decline assignments whenever a significant conflict of interest could compromise impartiality. Editors with a conflict regarding a manuscript should transfer editorial responsibility to another qualified editor.

Transparent disclosure of competing interests supports objective decision-making and reinforces confidence in the integrity of the peer review process.

📊 Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers appointed by the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) are expected to assess each manuscript using relevant academic, technical, methodological, ethical, and presentation criteria. The exact emphasis may vary depending on the article type, research discipline, and nature of the submitted work.

Reviewers may consider the following areas during evaluation:

• Originality: whether the manuscript presents new knowledge, methods, findings, applications, interpretations, or technical insights;
• Relevance: whether the subject is consistent with the aims and scope of GJETA;
• Research significance: whether the work contributes meaningfully to engineering, technology, applied sciences, or interdisciplinary research;
• Methodological quality: whether the research design, procedures, tools, models, experiments, calculations, or analytical methods are appropriate and clearly described;
• Technical accuracy: whether equations, measurements, simulations, data analysis, software outputs, engineering designs, and technical interpretations are accurate and logically presented;
• Data reliability: whether the evidence is sufficient, consistent, and appropriately analysed;
• Results and conclusions: whether the conclusions are supported by the findings and do not extend beyond the available evidence;
• Literature context: whether relevant previous research is acknowledged and the manuscript clearly explains its contribution;
• Ethical compliance: whether applicable approvals, permissions, consent statements, disclosures, and declarations are provided;
• Presentation quality: whether the manuscript is well organized, understandable, and suitable for scholarly publication.

🧪 Assessment of Research Methods and Technical Quality

Reviewers should examine whether the methods are sufficiently detailed to allow readers to understand, evaluate, and, where appropriate, reproduce the research. The manuscript should explain the research design, experimental conditions, materials, software, algorithms, instruments, datasets, analytical procedures, assumptions, and limitations relevant to the study.

For engineering and technology research, reviewers may also evaluate:

• the suitability of models, simulations, prototypes, or design methods;
• the accuracy of technical calculations and performance measurements;
• the validity of software or computational procedures;
• the appropriateness of benchmarks, controls, or comparison methods;
• the reliability of testing conditions and experimental setups;
• the practical applicability, scalability, safety, or sustainability of the proposed approach;
• the transparency of assumptions, limitations, and sources of uncertainty.

A manuscript should provide enough technical detail to support informed evaluation without making claims that cannot be verified from the evidence presented.

📈 Evaluation of Results, Discussion and Conclusions

Reviewers should determine whether the results are presented clearly and interpreted appropriately. Tables, figures, graphs, images, models, and statistical outputs should be consistent with the text and should contribute meaningfully to understanding the research.

The discussion should compare the findings with relevant previous studies, explain their significance, acknowledge limitations, and avoid exaggerated claims. Conclusions should arise directly from the reported results and should not introduce unsupported interpretations or recommendations.

📚 Evaluation of References and Scholarly Context

The reference list should include relevant, reliable, and appropriately cited literature. Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are necessary to understand the research context, methodology, or contribution.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite unrelated publications or recommend references primarily to increase citations to themselves, their colleagues, a particular institution, or a particular journal. Citation recommendations should always be based on genuine scholarly relevance.

📝 Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may provide one of several recommendations to the editor. The recommendation should be supported by clear comments explaining the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and required improvements.

Common recommendations may include:

• Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial changes;
• Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited corrections, clarifications, formatting changes, or improvements that do not substantially alter the research;
• Major Revision: the manuscript requires significant changes to methods, analysis, presentation, interpretation, or reporting before it can be reconsidered;
• Reject and Resubmit: the manuscript has potential but requires extensive redevelopment that may justify treatment as a new submission;
• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, technical, ethical, or scope requirements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision may differ when the editor considers the manuscript as a whole, evaluates conflicting reviewer opinions, consults additional experts, or identifies issues not addressed in the review reports.

⚖️ Editorial Decision Categories

Following editorial screening and peer review, the editor may issue an editorial decision based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, journal standards, and ethical considerations.

✔ Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted when it meets the journal's academic, technical, ethical, and presentation requirements. Acceptance may still be subject to final formatting, language correction, reference checking, metadata verification, or production-related adjustments.

✔ Minor Revision

A minor revision decision indicates that the manuscript is generally suitable for publication but requires limited changes. Authors should address each comment carefully and provide a clear response explaining the revisions made.

✔ Major Revision

A major revision decision indicates that substantial changes are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered. Revision does not guarantee acceptance. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional reviewers.

✔ Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected when it falls outside the journal scope, lacks sufficient originality, contains serious methodological or technical weaknesses, fails to meet ethical standards, or cannot be improved to an acceptable level through reasonable revision.

🔄 Revision Process

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should submit:

• a revised manuscript with all requested changes incorporated;
• a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments;
• a clear explanation when a suggested change has not been made;
• updated declarations, figures, tables, references, or supplementary files where required.

Responses should be professional, specific, and evidence-based. Authors should indicate where each revision appears in the manuscript whenever possible.

Failure to address major reviewer or editor concerns may result in further revision requests or rejection.

⏱️ Revision Timelines

Authors should submit revised manuscripts within the period specified in the editorial communication. The time allowed may vary depending on whether the decision requires minor or major revision.

When authors need additional time, they should contact the editorial office before the deadline and provide a reasonable explanation. A manuscript may be closed or treated as a new submission when a revision remains outstanding for an extended period without communication.

🔁 Second and Subsequent Rounds of Review

A revised manuscript may undergo further review when the editor determines that expert reassessment is necessary. The revised submission may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to new reviewers, or evaluated directly by the editor depending on the nature of the changes.

Additional review may be required when:

• substantial methodological or technical changes have been made;
• reviewer concerns were only partially addressed;
• new data, experiments, calculations, or analyses were added;
• reviewers provided conflicting recommendations;
• new ethical or research integrity concerns arise;
• specialized expertise is needed to evaluate a revised section.

There is no fixed number of review rounds. The process continues only as long as necessary to support a fair and informed editorial decision.

🧭 Managing Conflicting Reviewer Opinions

Reviewers may reach different conclusions because of disciplinary perspectives, technical interpretations, or differing assessments of research significance. Conflicting opinions do not automatically result in rejection.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may:

• evaluate the reports and manuscript independently;
• request clarification from one or more reviewers;
• invite an additional reviewer;
• ask the authors to address the conflicting concerns;
• make a decision based on the overall scholarly and technical evidence.

The editor is responsible for resolving conflicting recommendations fairly and should not rely solely on a numerical majority of reviewer decisions.

📢 Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, procedural problem, misunderstood technical issue, or overlooked evidence affected the outcome.

An appeal should:

• identify the manuscript clearly;
• explain the specific grounds for reconsideration;
• respond to the relevant editorial or reviewer concerns;
• provide supporting technical or scholarly evidence;
• remain professional and respectful.

Appeals based only on disagreement with the decision, without new evidence or identification of a substantive error, may not be considered.

Where appropriate, the appeal may be reviewed by another editor or an editorial board member who was not directly responsible for the original decision. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee a new review, reversal of the decision, or acceptance.

🏅 Reviewer Recognition

GJETA values the time, expertise, and professional contribution of peer reviewers. Reviewers support the journal by improving manuscript quality, identifying technical concerns, and helping editors make responsible publication decisions.

Subject to journal procedures and confidentiality requirements, reviewer recognition may include:

• review acknowledgement letters;
• reviewer certificates;
• inclusion in the journal's reviewer panel;
• formal recognition of completed peer review service.

Reviewer recognition does not disclose confidential manuscript information or compromise the independence of the review process.

🛡️ Ethical Standards During Peer Review

All participants in the peer review process must comply with the Publication Ethics Policy of the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances.

Unethical conduct during peer review may include:

• using unpublished information for personal or competitive advantage;
• sharing a confidential manuscript without authorization;
• submitting fabricated or misleading reviewer reports;
• impersonating another reviewer;
• manipulating reviewer nominations or contact details;
• requesting unnecessary citations for personal benefit;
• allowing personal disputes or commercial interests to influence the review;
• delegating a review without editorial permission;
• using automated or artificial intelligence tools in a manner that compromises confidentiality or independent judgement.

Suspected manipulation, fabricated peer review, identity misrepresentation, or confidentiality breaches may result in cancellation of the review, rejection of the manuscript, removal of the reviewer, or further ethical investigation.

🤖 Use of Artificial Intelligence During Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts when using digital or artificial intelligence tools. Unpublished manuscript content, author information, reviewer comments, research data, figures, source code, or technical designs should not be uploaded to external systems that may store, reuse, process, or disclose confidential information without authorization.

Artificial intelligence tools must not replace the independent scholarly judgement of qualified reviewers or editors. Any permitted use should comply with the journal's AI Usage Policy, confidentiality requirements, and publication ethics standards.

🔬 Research Integrity During Review

Reviewers and editors should remain alert to concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, image manipulation, unsupported claims, inaccurate citations, authorship irregularities, and missing ethical approvals.

When concerns are identified, they should be reported confidentially to the editor rather than communicated as public accusations. The journal may request supporting documents, raw data, original images, ethical approvals, or institutional clarification before reaching a conclusion.

⏳ Peer Review Timelines

The Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) aims to complete editorial screening, peer review, revision assessment, and final decision-making as efficiently as possible without compromising academic quality or ethical standards.

Peer review timelines may vary depending on:

• the complexity and specialization of the manuscript;
• the availability of qualified reviewers;
• the number of review rounds required;
• the extent of revisions requested;
• the speed and completeness of author responses;
• the need for additional technical or ethical evaluation.

Although GJETA supports fast editorial processing and timely publication, no manuscript is accepted solely to meet a publication deadline. Every submission must complete the required editorial and peer review stages before acceptance.

⚡ Fast Publishing and Independent Peer Review

Fast publishing at GJETA means that manuscripts are processed efficiently, unnecessary delays are minimized, and authors receive timely editorial communication. It does not mean that peer review is bypassed, shortened irresponsibly, or replaced by automatic acceptance.

The journal’s fast publishing approach is supported by:

• prompt initial editorial screening;
• timely reviewer invitations;
• clear revision instructions;
• efficient communication between authors, reviewers, and editors;
• rapid production after final acceptance.

Publication charges, author identity, institutional status, or geographical location do not determine the outcome of peer review. Editorial decisions remain based on academic merit, technical quality, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

🔄 Post-Publication Review and Reader Feedback

Peer review does not end the responsibility of the journal after publication. Readers, researchers, institutions, and authors may raise concerns regarding errors, data reliability, ethical compliance, authorship, duplicate publication, or other matters affecting the published record.

When credible post-publication concerns are reported, the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances may:

• review the published article and supporting information;
• contact the authors for clarification;
• consult reviewers or independent subject experts;
• request original data, images, calculations, approvals, or documentation;
• issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial update where necessary.

Post-publication review supports the continuing accuracy, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record.

📑 Peer Review of Different Article Types

The depth and focus of peer review may vary according to the article type. Original research articles may receive detailed assessment of methods, data, analysis, and conclusions, while review articles may be evaluated primarily for comprehensiveness, balance, accuracy, structure, and scholarly interpretation.

Technical notes, case studies, short communications, methodological papers, and interdisciplinary studies may be assessed according to criteria appropriate to their purpose and contribution.

Regardless of article type, every manuscript considered for publication must demonstrate:

• relevance to the journal’s scope;
• sufficient originality or scholarly value;
• clear and professional presentation;
• ethical and publication-policy compliance;
• reliable and supportable conclusions.

🌟 Why the Peer Review Policy Matters

A clear Peer Review Policy helps authors, reviewers, editors, and readers understand how scholarly decisions are made. It strengthens trust in the journal by promoting fairness, confidentiality, independence, transparency, and technical quality throughout manuscript evaluation.

For the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA), peer review is especially important because published research may influence engineering design, technological development, software systems, industrial practice, sustainability, education, infrastructure, and future scientific investigation.

This Peer Review Policy helps GJETA:

• publish technically reliable and academically valuable research;
• improve manuscript quality through constructive expert feedback;
• maintain independent and evidence-based editorial decisions;
• protect confidential and unpublished research information;
• identify methodological, technical, and ethical concerns;
• support timely yet responsible publication;
• strengthen confidence in the journal’s published content.

🔗 Related GJETA Editorial and Publishing Policies

Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers are encouraged to review the related policies of the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances for a complete understanding of the journal’s editorial and ethical framework.

🚀 Publish Your Engineering and Technology Research with GJETA

❓ Frequently Asked Questions About the Peer Review Policy

1. What is the Peer Review Policy of GJETA?

The Peer Review Policy of the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) explains how manuscripts are screened, assigned to qualified reviewers, evaluated, revised, and considered for a final editorial decision.

2. Why is the Peer Review Policy important for authors?

The Peer Review Policy helps authors understand the evaluation process followed by the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA), including editorial screening, reviewer assessment, revision requirements, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and decision categories.

3. Does the Peer Review Policy guarantee acceptance after review?

No. The Peer Review Policy of the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) makes clear that reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision depends on the overall quality, originality, ethical compliance, technical merit, and relevance of the manuscript.

4. How are reviewers selected under the Peer Review Policy?

Under the Peer Review Policy, the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) selects reviewers according to subject expertise, research experience, technical competence, and the absence of significant conflicts of interest.

5. What criteria are used in the Peer Review Policy?

The Peer Review Policy of the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) considers originality, methodology, technical accuracy, data reliability, ethical compliance, scholarly contribution, presentation quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

6. Does the Peer Review Policy support fast publishing?

Yes. The Peer Review Policy supports efficient editorial processing at the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA), but fast publishing does not mean bypassing independent review or compromising academic and ethical standards.

7. Can authors appeal a decision under the Peer Review Policy?

Yes. The Peer Review Policy allows authors to submit a reasoned appeal to the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA) when they believe a factual error, procedural problem, misunderstood technical issue, or overlooked evidence affected the decision.

8. How does the Peer Review Policy protect confidentiality?

The Peer Review Policy requires the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances (GJETA), its editors, reviewers, and editorial staff to protect submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence throughout the review process.