Peer review is the evaluation of work submitted by single or multiple people of same or similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). The review process at CREATECOM TECHNOLOGIES journals is carried out by corresponding peers who follow publication ethics and common good practices of article reviewing. Createcom Technologies relies on qualified members of a profession/trade/major/stream within the relevant field. Peer review practices and methods are adopted in order to maintain standards of quality, verifying authenticity of furnished data and hence making an article citable and credible.
All papers received are assigned a unique id and are submitted to a peer review process. The Editors may discard some manuscripts from the outright due to very low quality or in case of conflict with any of journal’s policies.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING & APPLIED SCIENCES follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. The entire peer-review process should be thorough, objective and fair. Journal reputation depends heavily on the fairness of the peer-review process. Peer reviewers (subject related/specialist) are experts chosen by journal editors to provide the written assessment (online system) of a particular format of written research, intending to improve the reporting of research and identify the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.
(1) The manuscript should be prepared using paper template available on Downloads section of website. It should be submitted via submission link only.
(2) The title, keywords, main body of the text, references, tables, and figures, acknowledgment, funding, conflict of interest, ethical issue, references, and similarity index (plagiarism report by publisher Turnitin/iThenticate software), among other things, are examined by a team that includes the editor-in-chief, managing editor, and other board members for acceptability. The incomplete manuscript will not be processed for publication and will be rejected. Manuscripts that are appropriate in every way and prepared in accordance with the author’s standards will be forwarded to at least two specialist subject expert reviewers as recommended by the Executive Board and Editorial Board members.
(3) Assigned reviewers write their reviews in a preformatted “Review Report” and mail them to managing editor. The authors’ identity is concealed from the reviewers, and the double-blind peer review process is often completed within 4-6 weeks of the submission date.
(4) After reviewing all of the reports, the managing editor or any other assigned editor and their editorial staff will compile comments and recommendation report for the manuscript. If there are minor edits indicated by reviewers, the managing editor compile all reviews and ask author to send the revised version with all corrections/edits done. The paper’s author designated as the corresponding author is the one with whom all communications, including clarifications, corrections, and alterations, are conducted.
(5) It is up to the author (or authors) to determine whether or not to respond to the comments and criticisms made by reviewers as well as the concerns raised by the editor. The authors send the Chief Editor a revised version of the manuscript along with specific information indicating how they have responded to the concerns raised by the editor and the reviewers.
(6) The paper is sent out for review by the Editor-in-Chief. Usually, the paper will be evaluated by at least one of the previous reviewers.
(7) After the reviewers have finished their work, the Editor-in-Chief, managing editor, and Editorial team analyze their suggestions to determine if the paper is ready for publication, requires additional revisions, or should be rejected.
(8) In the event that it is agreed to accept, the article should be forwarded to our production house so it can be published. Our technical staff finishes formatting the manuscript as per our journal as soon as possible.
(9) The Copyright form and only essential charges are accepted at this point.
(10) The technical team formats the manuscript to the appropriate journal style before sending it to the publishing team.
(11) The managing editor keeps track of the manuscript’s submission id, paper id, key dates (such as the day it was received, accepted, and will publish) and assigns doi and crossmark (may change before uploading XML format for DOI number & crossmark submission).
(12) The article is sent to the corresponding author for one last review before being uploaded and indexed online after receiving the last revision and final version.
The paper is approved based on the reviewers’ and editors’ recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors will make the final decision. As part of its objective, the CREATECOM TECHNOLOGIES adopts a neutral position on issues treated within this journal.
There are various methods of peer review widely accepted worldwide with their names as explained below-
Single Blind Review
The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author.
Reviewer anonymity Reviewers make impartial decisions as no influence is free from influence by the author.
Authors fear the risk that reviewers working in the same field may withhold submission of the review in order to delay publication, thereby giving the reviewer the opportunity to publish first.
Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author’s work.
Double Blind Review
Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.
Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on, for example, an author’s country of origin or previous controversial work.
Articles written by ‘prestigious’ or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation.
It is uncertain whether a paper can ever truly be ‘blind’ – especially in specialty ‘niche’ areas. Reviewers can often identify the author through the paper’s style, subject matter or self-citation.
Reviewer and author are known to each other.
Some scientists feel this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from drawing upon their own ‘agenda’ and encourage open, honest reviewing.
Others argue the opposite view. They see open review as a less honest process in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For example, junior reviewers may hesitate to criticize more esteemed authors for fear of damaging their prospects. Independent studies tend to support this.