Peer Review Guidelines
Peer Review Guidelines for the Journal of Renewable Energy and Sustainable Engineering
Conducting a Review
Initial Considerations Before Accepting an Invitation:
Before accepting a review invitation, please consider the following:
- Relevance to Expertise: Only accept if the article’s topic aligns closely with your area of expertise, ensuring you can provide a thorough and informed assessment.
- Conflict of Interest: If you have any personal, financial, or professional relationships that could influence your objectivity, disclose this to the editor prior to agreeing to review.
- Time Commitment: Ensure you can complete the review by the deadline. Reviewing requires time and diligence; respond promptly to the invitation to avoid delays in the editorial process. If you are unable to review, please suggest alternate reviewers, if possible.
Review Process and Confidentiality:
Upon accepting the invitation, please treat the manuscript and all associated files as confidential. Do not share content, findings, or any details related to the manuscript with anyone without express permission from the editor. Peer review at this journal is a single-blind process, meaning your identity remains anonymous to the authors.
Guidelines for a Thorough Review:
- Journal-Specific Criteria: Familiarize yourself with the journal’s standards and goals to align your review with our mission in renewable energy and sustainable engineering.
- Methodological Assessment: Begin by reviewing the methods section if the article involves experiments. Key concerns that require immediate attention include:
- Unsound or inappropriate methodologies
- Missing essential processes or controls that impact reliability
- Conclusions that contradict the data or lack sufficient evidence
For analytical and qualitative research, ensure there is a clear and systematic presentation of data and that significant findings are supported by adequate data or qualitative evidence.
- Data and Visual Representations: Review figures, tables, and any other visual data thoroughly. Check for clarity, proper labeling, and logical presentation. Major issues may include unclear tables, insufficient data points, or statistically non-significant variations. If links to additional data are provided, verify that these data support the findings.
- Critical Review of Content: If the methodology and data appear robust, consider the article’s broader implications, relevance to the field, and overall contribution to renewable energy and sustainable engineering. If no significant issues are identified, proceed to form an opinion on the article’s originality and value.
Structuring Your Feedback:
- General Summary: Provide an overview of your opinion on the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
- Detailed Comments: List specific points, using constructive language. Avoid personal comments or identifying yourself and be objective. Clearly separate your own opinions from those supported by data in the manuscript.
- Recommendations: When suggesting a final recommendation, please choose one of the following:
- Reject: If the manuscript has significant flaws that cannot be rectified.
- Accept without Revision: If the paper is ready for publication as submitted.
- Revise (Minor or Major): Specify required changes. For major revisions, outline critical changes needed, and indicate if you’re willing to review the revised manuscript.
After Your Review:
The editor will weigh your feedback along with that of other reviewers to make a final decision. You will be notified of the final decision if the journal’s system provides reviewer notifications.
Your insightful and thoughtful contributions are crucial in helping the Journal of Renewable Energy and Sustainable Engineering maintain its high standards. Thank you for your commitment to advancing quality research.
