Peer Review Process
JETI only accepts manuscripts in English. Manuscripts should follow the style of the journal and are subject to both review and editing. All manuscripts should be uploaded via the online system. All manuscripts submitted to this journal should be original, previously unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. All paper submissions then will be refereed in a rigorous double-blind review process by at least 2 international reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewer’s recommendation: rejected, major revision, minor revision, or accepted. The review process takes about 4 to 6 months according to the journal workload. The authors can track their manuscripts through this system.
When reviewing the article, please consider the following aspects to help guide your review report for research articles:
- Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner?
- Is there an aim, research question, or reason for doing the research, and has this research been put in the context of previous work? Is a gap in knowledge identified?
- Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?
- Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?
- Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?
- Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.
- Have the results been presented and discussed clearly and completely?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
- Do you have any other suggestions that might help the author(s) strengthen their paper to make it more applicable to the community?