Peer Review Process

WUJUD: Journal of Engineering and Technology

WUJUD: Journal of Engineering and Technology applies a rigorous, independent, and academically responsible peer-review process to ensure the originality, scientific validity, methodological quality, technical relevance, and contribution of manuscripts published in the journal. Every manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is evaluated by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

Peer Review Model

WUJUD uses a double-blind peer-review model. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors during the review process. This model is intended to reduce potential bias and support an independent, objective, and fair scholarly assessment.

The confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and other materials associated with the review process must be maintained by authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff.

Peer Review at a Glance

Component	Policy
Review Model	Double-blind peer review
Initial Assessment	Conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or assigned Editor
Similarity Screening	Conducted before or during the initial editorial evaluation
Number of Reviewers	Normally three independent reviewers with relevant expertise
Review Period	Normally 2–6 weeks, depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability
Review Focus	Originality, scientific quality, methodology, analysis, technical contribution, discussion, and conclusions
Revision Rounds	One or more rounds may be required depending on reviewer and editor evaluation
Final Decision	Made by the Editor-in-Chief and/or responsible Editor based on scholarly evaluation and reviewer reports

Peer Review Workflow

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Manuscripts must comply with the journal's aims and scope, author guidelines, manuscript template, ethical requirements, and submission requirements.

2. Administrative and Technical Screening

The editorial team checks manuscript completeness, author information, formatting, required declarations, references, figures, tables, supplementary materials where applicable, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

3. Similarity and Publication Ethics Screening

Manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software and editorial checks for potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, fabrication, falsification, multiple submission, conflicts of interest, or other publication ethics concerns.

4. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor conducts an initial substantive assessment to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal's scope and demonstrates sufficient scientific quality, originality, methodological adequacy, technical relevance, and potential contribution to engineering or technology.

5. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to qualified independent reviewers whose expertise corresponds to the manuscript's subject, methodology, and engineering or technological field. Reviewer selection considers expertise, publication record, institutional diversity, academic integrity, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.

6. Independent Peer Review

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed, substantive, constructive, and evidence-based comments. Reviewer assessment must focus primarily on the scientific and technical substance of the manuscript rather than merely on formatting or language.

7. Editorial Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

The responsible Editor evaluates the quality, relevance, consistency, and substance of the reviewer reports. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor is responsible for ensuring that comments sent to authors are academically appropriate, constructive, and relevant to the manuscript.

8. Author Revision

When revision is required, authors must revise the manuscript carefully and provide a structured response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed. Authors should clearly identify changes made to the revised manuscript.

9. Re-Review Where Required

Manuscripts requiring major revision may be returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for additional assessment. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the responsible Editor when further external review is not necessary.

10. Final Editorial Decision

After considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, and applicable ethical requirements, the Editor makes the final publication decision. Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript meets the journal's scientific, technical, ethical, and editorial standards.

Reviewer Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts substantively. The assessment should consider, where applicable, the following aspects:

No.	Assessment Area	Key Considerations
1	Scope and Relevance	Suitability of the manuscript for the journal's aims, scope, and readership.
2	Originality and Novelty	Original contribution, research gap, novelty, and advancement beyond previous studies.
3	Scientific and Technical Quality	Scientific validity, engineering relevance, technical depth, and intellectual contribution.
4	Methodology	Appropriateness, clarity, validity, reliability, reproducibility, and adequacy of the research or development method.
5	Results and Analysis	Accuracy, completeness, analytical depth, interpretation, validation, and consistency of results.
6	Discussion	Depth of interpretation and comparison with relevant previous research, theories, standards, benchmarks, or technologies.
7	Conclusions	Whether conclusions are supported by findings and adequately answer the research objectives.
8	References	Relevance, adequacy, currency, primary-source use, and appropriate scholarly citation.
9	Presentation Quality	Clarity, logical organization, readability, tables, figures, technical terminology, and overall scholarly presentation.

Reviewer Qualifications and Selection

Reviewers should demonstrate relevant expertise and an appropriate scholarly publication record in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewer selection is based on scientific competence rather than academic title alone.

Possess expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject and methodology.
Maintain an active and relevant scholarly publication record.
Be institutionally independent from the authors where necessary to avoid conflicts of interest.
Have no personal, professional, financial, academic, or institutional conflict that may compromise impartiality.
Be able to provide substantive, objective, constructive, and timely evaluation.
Maintain strict confidentiality throughout and after the review process.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. A reviewer should decline an invitation when personal, institutional, professional, academic, financial, competitive, or collaborative relationships could reasonably compromise or appear to compromise the independence of the review. Editors must replace reviewers when a material conflict is identified.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use information contained in submitted manuscripts for personal, academic, commercial, competitive, or other purposes. Unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer's own research or professional advantage.

Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, manuscript contents, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial information into publicly accessible generative Artificial Intelligence systems or other services that may compromise confidentiality. Artificial Intelligence must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment, substantive evaluation, or personal responsibility for the review report.

Quality of Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports are expected to contain substantive scholarly comments, specific recommendations for improvement, and a reasoned assessment of the manuscript. A report consisting only of general comments, grammatical corrections, formatting suggestions, or a recommendation without adequate scientific justification is considered insufficient for a substantive peer-review process.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the responsible Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Decision	Description
Accept	The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial requirements and may proceed to production.
Minor Revision	Limited revisions are required and may normally be assessed by the responsible Editor.
Major Revision	Substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
Reject	The manuscript does not meet the required scientific, methodological, ethical, technical, or editorial standards.

Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor evaluates the scientific reasoning presented in each report rather than making a decision solely by counting reviewer recommendations. The Editor may seek clarification, conduct additional editorial assessment, or appoint an additional independent reviewer before making a decision.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Team are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as all other submissions. An editor who is an author, co-author, collaborator, or otherwise has a conflict of interest with a manuscript must not participate in its evaluation or publication decision. The manuscript will be assigned to another independent qualified Editor.

Special Issue Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted for a Special Issue, thematic issue, or other special collection are subject to the same peer-review, ethical, scientific, and editorial standards as manuscripts submitted to regular issues. Inclusion in a conference, invited collection, or special issue does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

No Guaranteed Acceptance

Payment of any applicable publication charge, institutional relationship, sponsorship, invitation, recommendation, or other non-academic consideration does not guarantee acceptance or publication. No manuscript may bypass the journal's required editorial and peer-review procedures.

Documentation and Review Records

Peer-review activities, reviewer assignments, reviewer reports, editorial communications, author revisions, responses to reviewers, and editorial decisions are managed and documented through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) workflow. These records support transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the editorial process.

Commitment to Rigorous Peer Review

WUJUD: Journal of Engineering and Technology is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, independent, confidential, and substantive peer-review process. Peer review is used not merely as an administrative requirement, but as a fundamental mechanism for protecting scientific quality, research integrity, and the credibility of every article published by the journal.

Peer Review and Publication Ethics Reference: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)