Peer Review Process

Industrial & System Engineering Journals (ISEJOU) implements a peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of manuscripts submitted for publication. All manuscripts are evaluated through an initial editorial screening before being considered for peer review. The review process consists of the following stages:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts electronically through the ISEJOU Online Journal System (OJS). All submitted manuscripts must be written in English and prepared in accordance with the official ISEJOU manuscript template and Author Guidelines. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original, have not been previously published, and are not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the submitted manuscript meets the journal's administrative and technical requirements. This screening includes verification of the manuscript's completeness, compliance with the prescribed template, English-language requirements, and conformity with the journal's focus and scope. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined before proceeding to further evaluation.

3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief to determine their suitability for publication in ISEJOU. This evaluation considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, originality, scientific contribution, and overall academic quality. The Editor-in-Chief may decline a manuscript at this stage if it does not meet the journal's editorial standards or falls outside its scope. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation proceed to the peer-review stage.

4. Invitation of Peer Reviewers

The editor selects and invites qualified reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewer selection takes into account subject-matter expertise, the relevance of the manuscript to the reviewer's field, and potential conflicts of interest.

5. Reviewers' Response to the Invitation

Invited reviewers assess whether they have the necessary expertise, sufficient time, and independence to conduct an objective evaluation. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. If an invitation is declined, the editor may invite another qualified reviewer. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the impartiality of their assessment.

6. Peer Review

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript's scientific quality and contribution to the relevant field. The evaluation generally considers:

  • Originality and significance of the research.

  • Relevance and clarity of the research objectives.

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the research methods.

  • Validity and clarity of the results.

  • Depth and relevance of the discussion.

  • Consistency between the findings and conclusions.

  • Adequacy and relevance of the references.

  • Clarity of academic writing and presentation.

Reviewers provide constructive comments, suggestions for improvement, and recommendations to the editor. The recommendations may include acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The reviewers' recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.

7. Editorial Evaluation of Review Reports

After receiving the review reports, the editor carefully evaluates the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The editor considers the scientific merits of the manuscript, the significance of any identified weaknesses, and the revisions required to meet the journal's publication standards. When reviewers provide substantially different assessments, the editor may seek an additional review before making an editorial decision.

8. Communication of the Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's editorial communication system. Depending on the outcome of the evaluation, the manuscript may be:

  • Accepted: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication.

  • Revision Required: The authors are requested to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' and editor's comments.

  • Rejected: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in ISEJOU.

When revisions are required, the authors receive the relevant review comments and editorial instructions to assist them in improving the manuscript. The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection rests with the editorial team, under the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

9. Revision, Re-evaluation, and Publication

Authors who are requested to revise their manuscripts must carefully address the reviewers' and editor's comments. Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a clear explanation of the changes made and responses to the comments received. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the editor may evaluate the revised manuscript directly or return it to the reviewers for further assessment. The revision and evaluation process may continue until the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards or a final decision is reached. Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the editorial production stage, which may include copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and final publication. Manuscripts that are rejected are not processed further under the same submission. ISEJOU is committed to conducting the peer-review process fairly, objectively, and professionally to maintain the quality and integrity of its published research.