PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All articles published in the International Journal Polytechnic undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. The first review is based on an initial editors’ screening and anti-plagiarism checking, which is followed by a more detailed review by at least two anonymous reviewers. Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:

  • The originality of its contribution to the field of scholarly publishing;
  • The soundness of its theory and methodology given the topic;
  • The coherence of its analysis;
  • Its ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).

The choice of reviewers is at the Editor’s discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the Authors’ own institution, and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the Authors.

INITIAL PHASE

Each received article is forwarded to two independent reviewers – a double-blind peer-review process (reviewers do not know who the author of the article is, and the author does not know who the reviewers of his article are). We insist on anonymity because we believe that this procedure will contribute to a more independent, more critical, and better examination of papers. The typical time allowed for reviews is four weeks. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor-in-Chief may assign an additional reviewer. The purpose of peer review is to assist the Editor in making editorial decisions. Editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

At the beginning of the reviewer form, the reviewer states his name, title, and the full name of the institution where he or she works. These data are confidential, remain with the editorial board, and will not be sent to the author of the article.

INVESTIGATE THE JOURNAL'S CONTENT

The first detail you need is to observe the originality, relevance, presentation, and importance of the article. Visit the Authors’ Guidelines on the Journal’s homepage to see if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable or not. In the review form that you receive, write your opinion on the work. The first question should be: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?

ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY

The Title, Abstract, and Keywords: Do they clearly describe the article? Do they reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately and clearly state the problem being investigated? Usually, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data were collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded? Has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results and discussion: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion: Do the results support the claims in this section? Do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they correctly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

HOW TO WRITE YOUR REPORT

Complete all the review questions in the report form. Write your report on the work. Your report does not have to agree with the authors’ attitudes. If needed, make straightforward suggestions to the author to improve clarity, conciseness, and the overall quality of the presentation. First of all, try to clarify whether the article fits within the scope of the journal, whether the article is original, whether the research helps to expand further research in this area, and whether this article would be of interest to readers of the journal. If you find that the answer to some of these questions is negative, consider recommending that the author submit it to a related journal. Also, check if the article is written in standard English, whether the original research follows the IMRAD method, whether there is an abstract, and whether there is a conclusion section.

MAKE A RECOMMENDATION

After you have finished reading the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief regarding publication. You should make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept the article without further revision – if the article is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Accept after minor revision – if the article will be ready for publication after light revisions.
  • Accept after major revision – the article needs substantial changes and needs to be resubmitted.
  • Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication in the journal.

REVISED PAPERS

When authors revise their article in response to reviewers’ comments, they should be asked to resubmit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers. If possible, the revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer, who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.

WHAT IF YOU CANNOT COMPLETE A REVIEW

If you cannot complete a review, you should immediately notify the editorial office. If you are unable to complete your report on paper within the agreed time frame, inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.