Peer-Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Engineering, Science and Technological Trends (JESTT) are initially assessed by the editorial staff. To ensure an efficient review process and to respect the time of authors and reviewers, only manuscripts that are considered likely to meet the journal’s editorial standards are forwarded for formal peer review. Manuscripts deemed to be of insufficient originality, limited scientific contribution, or outside the aims and scope of the journal are rejected at this stage without external review. In some cases, these decisions may be informed by informal consultation with subject-area specialists.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation (1–3 days)

Editors conduct an initial evaluation of all submitted manuscripts to assess their originality, technical quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they:

  • Lack sufficient novelty or originality
  • Contain major scientific or methodological deficiencies
  • Fall outside the aims and scope of JESTT

Manuscripts that meet the minimum editorial requirements are forwarded to at least one independent expert reviewer.

Authors of manuscripts rejected during the initial evaluation are notified promptly, typically within 1–3 days of submission.

Peer Review Method

The Journal of Engineering, Science and Technological Trends (JESTT) employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review period. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are reviewed by qualified referees within 20–40 days, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Referee Selection

Referees are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The journal makes every effort to ensure an appropriate match between the manuscript content and reviewer expertise.

Referee Reports

Reviewers are requested to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original and makes a meaningful contribution to the field
  • Is scientifically and methodologically sound
  • Complies with relevant ethical standards
  • Presents results clearly and supports the stated conclusions
  • Correctly references relevant and recent prior work
  • Is clearly written and well structured

Language correction is not a primary responsibility of reviewers; however, referees may recommend revisions to improve clarity and readability.

Editorial Decision and Timeline

Based on the reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the Editor issues a decision of acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further review to ensure that reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.

The average time from initial submission to final acceptance is approximately 40–60 days, depending on reviewer responsiveness and the timely submission of revised manuscripts by the authors.