Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN ADVANCE ENGINEERING (IJRAE) is peer-reviewed journal that deals with the theoretical foundations of information, computation, implementation and application in engineering. It publishes regular papers and special issues on specific topics of interest to international audiences of educational researchers.

The goal of this journal is to include all the department of Engineering e.g. Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Information Technology, Electrical Engineering, Production Engineering and Electronics Engineering. This also includes all the advance and recent topics of all Engineering.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers in all World Scientific and Imperial College Press journals. To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous review process. Characteristics of the peer review process are as follows:

  • Immediate submissions of the same manuscript to different journals will not be tolerated.
  • Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
  • Papers will be refereed by at least 2 experts as suggested by the editorial board.
  • In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when Editors decide further review is required.
  • All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. We expect our Board of Reviewing Editors and reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential material as well.
  • Editors and reviewers involved in the review process should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and remove oneself from cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must not be used for competitive gain.
  • Our peer review process is confidential and identities of reviewers cannot be revealed. 

The Review Process

 

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

  • Accept, with or without editorial revisions
  • Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
  • Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems. 

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.

 

When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.

How long does the review process take?

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 3 months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. All our referees sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within 1 week. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript. 

Final report 

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees. 

Editor’s Decision is final 

Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.

 

Publication Frequency

Journal items can be published collectively, as part of an issue with its own Table of Contents. Alternatively, individual items can be published as soon as they are ready, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents. Provide readers, in About the Journal, with a statement about the system this journal will use and its expected frequency of publication.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...