Information for Reviewers

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

Because qualified manuscript review is essential to the publication process, all engineers and scientists have an obligation to do their fair share of review.

If a reviewer feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to fairly judge the work reported, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly to the editor.

A reviewer shall objectively judge the quality of a manuscript on its own merit and shall respect the intellectual independence of the author(s). Personal criticism is never appropriate.

A reviewer shall avoid conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If a manuscript submitted for review presents a potential conflict of interest or the reviewer has a personal bias, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly without review, and so advise the editor.

A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.

A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought. In that event, the identities of such persons should be disclosed to the editor.

Reviewers shall explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Negative judgments, in particular, should receive a clear, complete, and cogent explanation from the reviewer.

A reviewer shall call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published manuscript or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a submitted manuscript are confidential and shall not be used in the research of a reviewer, or otherwise disseminated except with the consent of the author and with appropriate attribution.

If a reviewer has convincing evidence that a manuscript contains plagiarized material or falsified research data, or evidence of simultaneous submission, the reviewer shall notify the editor, who will determine the final disposition of the matter.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Ethical Obligations of Editors/Associate Editors

1. The primary responsibility of an IRJAET journal editor is to ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process of manuscripts submitted for publication, and to establish and maintain high standards of technical and professional quality. Criteria of quality are: originality of approach; clarity and conciseness; concept and/or application; profundity; and relevance to the mechanical engineering profession.

2. An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, seniority, citizenship, professional association, institutional affiliation, professional association, or political philosophy of the author(s). An editor may, however, take into account relationships of a manuscript immediately under consideration to others previously or concurrently offered by the same author(s).

3. The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editor. Responsible and prudent exercise of this duty normally requires that the editor seek advice from associate editors, who are expert in a specific area and will send manuscripts submitted for publication to reviewers chosen for their expertise and good judgment, to referee the quality and reliability of manuscripts. However, manuscripts may be rejected without review if considered inappropriate for the journal.

4. The editor and editorial staff shall disclose no information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice regarding the publication of the manuscript is sought. The names of reviewers shall not be released by the editors or editorial staff.

5. An editor should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed. Authors should be periodically informed of the status of the review process. In cases where reasonable speed cannot be accomplished because of unforeseen circumstances, the associate editor has an obligation to withdraw himself/herself from the process in a timely manner to avoid unduly affecting the author's pursuit of publication.

6. An editor who authors or co-authors a manuscript submitted for consideration to the journal with which that editor is affiliated, shall not review that work. If after publication, the editor-author's work merits ongoing scientific debate within the journal, the editor-author shall accept no editorial responsibility in connection therewith.

7. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.

8.    An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.

9.    Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a submitted manuscript are confidential and shall not be used in the research of an editor or associate editor, or otherwise disseminated except with the consent of the author (s) and with appropriate attribution.

10. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the substance, conclusions, references or other material included in a manuscript published in an IRJAET journal are erroneous, the editor, after notifying the author(s) and allowing them to respond in writing, shall facilitate immediate publication of an errata. If possible, an editor shall also facilitate publication of appropriate comments and/or papers identifying those errors.

11. Editors should be alert to possible cases of plagiarism, duplication of previous published work, falsified data, misappropriation of intellectual property, duplicate submission of manuscripts, inappropriate attribution, or incorrect co-author listing. The editor may deal directly with such ethical lapses, or, if deemed necessary, may forward the manuscript to the IRJAET Publications Committee.