Peer Review Process

1. Review Philosophy & Objectives

All manuscripts submitted to JERAS undergo a rigorous, independent peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality, originality, and methodology. The journal utilizes a **Double-Blind Peer Review** system, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the evaluation period.

2. Peer Review Workflow

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Assessment & Plagiarism Check

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors perform an initial screening to check:

• Scope Fit: Ensuring the topic aligns with the scope and objectives of the journal.
• Plagiarism Detection: The manuscript is checked using **Turnitin**. Submissions exceeding the acceptable threshold are rejected immediately.
• Formatting & Quality: Checking adherence to the author guidelines and structural requirements.

Stage 2: External Evaluation (Peer Review)

If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it is assigned to **at least two (2) independent external peer reviewers** who are highly experienced in scientific research within the specific research area and precise specialty of the manuscript under review. Reviewers assess the paper based on:

• Originality and scientific contribution.
• Methodological soundness and validity of the experimental/engineering design.
• Clarity of results presentation and scientific discussion.
• Accuracy and currency of the cited references.

Stage 3: Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers submit detailed reports and suggest one of the following decisions:

• Accept: Accept the paper for publication in its current form.
• Minor Revisions: Accept the paper conditionally, subject to minor changes.
• Major Revisions: Condition acceptance on major revisions; the paper is re-reviewed after submission of the revised draft.
• Reject: Reject the paper due to structural flaws, lack of novelty, or methodological issues.

Stage 4: Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief consolidates the reviewer feedback to make the final decision. In cases of conflicting reviewer decisions or divergent recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief refers the manuscript to a third independent expert reviewer to resolve the discrepancy and guarantee the highest degree of fairness and objectivity.

3. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to comply with standard publication ethics and peer review guidelines, including:

• Conflict of Interest: Disclosing any commercial, personal, or academic conflict of interest and declining reviews when appropriate.
• Confidentiality: Treating submitted manuscripts as highly confidential documents that cannot be shared or used before publication.
• Objectivity: Conducting evaluations objectively and constructively, avoiding personal criticisms.

4. Review Timeline

We aim to complete the review cycle efficiently. The editorial board strives to complete the review cycle efficiently. The processing time, peer review, and final publication speed range between 1 to 4 weeks in total from the submission date.