The Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology (JSET) relies on expert peer reviewers to maintain the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring that published research meets high academic and ethical standards.
Reviewers are expected to:
Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of manuscripts
Assist editors in making informed editorial decisions
Help authors improve the clarity, rigor, and impact of their work
Uphold confidentiality and ethical standards throughout the review process
JSET follows a double-blind peer review process.
Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors
Authors’ identities remain confidential to reviewers, and vice versa
Before accepting a review request, reviewers should:
Ensure the manuscript falls within their area of expertise
Confirm availability to complete the review within the given timeframe
Declare any potential conflicts of interest
If unable to review, reviewers are encouraged to decline promptly and, if possible, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
Reviewers must:
Treat the manuscript and all associated materials as confidential
Not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript with others
Not use unpublished data or ideas for personal research
Confidentiality must be maintained even after the review process is completed.
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest arising from:
Personal or professional relationships with the authors
Institutional affiliations
Financial or competitive interests
If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following:
Is the research novel and significant?
Does it contribute meaningfully to the field of engineering and technology?
Are the methods appropriate and well-described?
Are the results valid, reproducible, and clearly presented?
Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly written?
Are figures, tables, and equations clear and relevant?
Is the literature review adequate and up to date?
Are references relevant and correctly cited?
Are ethical standards followed?
Are there signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, or manipulation?
Reviewers should:
Provide clear, constructive, and respectful comments
Distinguish between major and minor concerns
Support critiques with reasoning and, where appropriate, references
Avoid personal or derogatory remarks
Comments to authors should focus on improvement.
Confidential comments to editors may be used for sensitive concerns.
Reviewers may recommend:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
Final publication decisions are made by the editorial team.
Reviewers should submit their reports within the agreed review period
If delays are unavoidable, reviewers should inform the editor promptly
Timely reviews are essential to maintaining an efficient publication process
Reviewers should:
Alert editors to any suspected ethical misconduct
Identify substantial similarity with other published or submitted works
Refrain from suggesting citations solely to increase their own citation counts
If AI tools are used to assist in the review process:
They must not compromise manuscript confidentiality
AI tools should not replace expert human judgment
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their review
JSET recognizes the valuable contribution of reviewers and may:
Acknowledge reviewers annually
Provide certificates of review upon request
Consider outstanding reviewers for editorial roles
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to adhere to these guidelines and to the ethical standards of scholarly publishing.