Reviewer Selection

• Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, academic background, research experience, and relevance to the submitted manuscript.
• Reviewers with identified conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, research groups, or subject matter should not participate in the review.
• The journal seeks appropriate diversity in reviewer expertise, institutions, geographical representation, and professional backgrounds where feasible.
• Reviewer assignments may be varied across manuscripts to reduce repeated dependence on the same reviewers and support balanced evaluation.
• Reviewers are expected to possess sufficient expertise to assess the technical, scientific, methodological, and disciplinary aspects of the manuscript.

Review Process

• JEIERT follows a structured double-blind peer review process with defined evaluation criteria.
• Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, evidence-based, constructive, and academically relevant comments.
• Authors are provided with reviewer comments and are given an opportunity to submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point response, where applicable.
• Editorial oversight is maintained to promote consistency, fairness, and appropriate review quality.
• Final editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations, author responses, manuscript quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.

Quality Control

• Editorial and review timelines are periodically monitored to maintain an efficient and responsible publication process.
• Reviewer reports may be assessed for completeness, professionalism, relevance, and quality.
• Authors may communicate legitimate concerns regarding reviewer comments or the editorial process to the editorial office.
• Editorial decisions may be internally reviewed when significant procedural or ethical concerns are identified.
• JEIERT seeks continuous improvement in its editorial policies, reviewer guidance, manuscript handling procedures, and publication standards.

Appeals Process

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural concern, or inappropriate interpretation of the manuscript may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals should normally be submitted within 30 days of the editorial decision and should include:

• A clear and concise explanation of the grounds for appeal
• A point-by-point response to the relevant reviewer or editorial comments
• Supporting evidence, clarification, or additional information where relevant
• Professional, factual, and respectful communication

Publication Ethics

• Clear policies are maintained regarding authorship, contributorship, conflicts of interest, originality, and research integrity.
• Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest that could affect the publication process.
• Manuscripts may be screened using appropriate plagiarism or similarity-detection tools.
• Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical image manipulation, or other forms of misconduct may lead to editorial investigation and appropriate action.
• Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions may be issued when necessary to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

Editorial Transparency

• Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit, technical quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and suitability for JEIERT.
• Editors should not allow personal, institutional, financial, or professional interests to improperly influence editorial decisions.
• Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members should be handled through an independent review process where appropriate.
• Confidential information obtained during manuscript handling should not be disclosed or used for personal or professional advantage.