Iranian Journal of Engineering Education appreciates the reviewers to spend their valuable time to review the articles submitted for their consideration. IJEE acknowledge your acceptance and responsibility of reviewing a manuscript. Below is some guideline to help you for reviewing the articles.
A – Reviewing Guidelines
1- Iranian Journal of Engineering Education applies doable -blind peer review.
2- Reviewers should not disclose their identity to the authors, at any stage of the publication of the manuscript.
3- Reviewers of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research.
4- Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor so that alternative reviewer can be contacted.
5-Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
6- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
7- Reviewers should provide constructive comments to improve the quality of the article.
8- Reviewers may identify relevant published works that has not been cited by the authors.
9- Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship nor political values of the authors.
10- Articles are assigned based on the research interests of the reviewers. They can approach the assigned editor/editorial office, if the manuscript is beyond their expertise.
11- Reviewers should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
12- Reviewer reviews his/her assigned article and judges it according to four categories: acceptable as is, needs with minor revisions, needs with major revisions, and reject. (The corresponding form in available at end of this guidelines)
Please note that final decision to accept or reject of an article depend on the comments from the Editor-in-Chief.
B - Writing the review
The IJEE will be please if the reviewer provides a statement to identify the major contributions of the article. What are its major strengths, weaknesses and its suitability for publication?
Support your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence. If you like to provide a marked up copy of your manuscript as part of your review, you can do so by uploading the file to the review form. However, we prefer to have these marked-up files in PDF format rather than Word to ensure that the comments and annotations can be easily forwarded to the author.
The following checklist is available for the referee. It should be filled properly and any further comments on the specified column can be added during your online review.
C- Reviewer’s remarks to the authors
Please provide comments and suggestions which are useful for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the article. If you are submitting a reviewer’s report to reject the article, you are asked to provide the reasons for rejection. Those comments are sent to the authors.
D- Reviewer’s confidential remarks to the editor
Those comments are sent for the editor responsible to the review of the article, not to the authors. So any potential scientific misconducts, conflict of interest, etc can be mentioned here.
E- Revised papers
When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, they are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers. The revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer if possible, who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.