The peer review procedure is implemented by the International Journal of Engineering Science and Management (IJESM) is intentionally structured to exhibit transparency, fairness, comprehensiveness, and objectivity. This process undergoes frequent evaluation and establishes the fundamental procedures implemented by the journal. The appointment of persons to the editorial board is mostly the responsibility of the editor-in-chief. The majority of these individuals assume the role of decision editors, who are entrusted with the task of overseeing the peer review process for submitted articles. The process of selecting board members is determined by various criteria, including their level of knowledge, geographical and topical representation, nomination by current members, and more relevant aspects. Editors typically hold their positions for a duration of three years, during which they may be considered for reappointment for a second term, but such reappointment is not assured. The decision to grant a third term is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into consideration the individual’s outstanding achievement. The periodic evaluation of editorial board members’ performance is taken into account while considering their reappointment. The board as a collective entity may receive and review general performance data, such as the quantity of articles processed, which enables individual editors to assess their performance in comparison to their peers. The disclosure of specific performance statistics, such as the quantity of successful appeals, is subject to confidentiality.

The editor-in-chief is responsible for the selection of peer reviewers for the journal. Typically, it is expected that a candidate possesses a minimum of two peer-reviewed research articles that have been published, whereby they have fulfilled the role of either first or second author.

The evaluative process conducted by editors involves the systematic evaluation of all reviews in order to determine their quality. Each review is assigned a score on a scale ranging from 1 to 4. Periodic evaluations would be conducted to analyze both the quality ratings & other performance indicators, such as the timeliness of reviews and the acceptance, declination, and disregard of review invitations. Reviewers who demonstrate unsatisfactory performance will not be considered for reappointment.

The peer-review method is characterized by a double-blind approach, where the identities of both the peer reviewers and the authors remain undisclosed. This anonymity is maintained as long as the writers have effectively eliminated any identifiable information from their paper. The authors have the duty of sufficiently eliminating any identifying information before submitting their manuscript. Authors have the option to propose potential decision editors and peer reviewers for their manuscript, however, it is important to note that the journal is not obligated to accept these proposals.

The manuscript that is submitted for review is considered a confidential form of communication. Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from retaining, sharing, or making copies of the manuscript without explicit approval from the decision editor. This approval may be granted in cases where confidential feedback from a colleague is sought. However, it is essential that the colleague receiving the article is also obligated to maintain the same degree of confidentiality. In the event that an author files an appeal against an editor’s decision, the appeal will undergo evaluation by the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief may seek input from one or more senior editors and engage in a discussion regarding the appeal with the decision editor responsible for the manuscript. The editor-in-chief possesses the authority to either uphold the original determination or let the authors to submit the manuscript once again for an additional round of peer review, including a distinct decision editor and a fresh set of peer reviewers. Additional courses of action might be chosen suitable, depending upon the specific manuscript under consideration.

If a previously published article is found to include significant mistakes or defects, the journal will publish an erratum notice or other notification of the problem as soon as possible.

The journal may address issues regarding misconduct in the peer review or publication process to the best of its ability. However, in certain cases, the employer of the implicated individual, a granting agency, or a regulatory authority may be required to conduct a more extensive investigation into the alleged wrongdoing. The primary responsibility of a journal is not to impose disciplinary actions on individuals, but rather to consider the publication of research findings in relation to the scientific record. The authority to discipline individuals lies with their employer, granting agency, or regulating body.

The editor-in-chief will conduct an initial review of allegations of misconduct, which will begin with a written communication to all parties concerned. Such contact will express the nature of the complaint and solicit relevant information. The editor-in-chief has the option to seek confidential advice from other editors, external technical specialists (while ensuring their identities remain undisclosed), or any other relevant individuals. Each study might be supported by a senior associate editor. The International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) adheres to the principles advocated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In cases of alleged misconduct, such as redundant or duplicate publication, plagiarism, fabrication of data, reviewer misconduct, complaints against editors, and other ethical issues related to submitted manuscripts, the investigation and resolution process will be guided by the COPE flowcharts.