Peer-Review Policy
-
1. Purpose of Peer Review
The Indian Journal of Technical Education (IJTE) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, academic relevance and integrity of the research it publishes. Peer review is an essential part of the journal's editorial process and assists the editorial team in assessing the scholarly merit, technical soundness, clarity and suitability of submitted manuscripts.
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's quality, relevance to the journal's scope, originality, ethical compliance and the assessments received during peer review.
-
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Every manuscript submitted to IJTE undergoes an initial editorial screening before it is considered for external peer review.
During this stage, the editorial team assesses whether the manuscript:
- Falls within the scope of the journal.
- Meets the basic requirements for scholarly content, structure and presentation.
- Demonstrates sufficient originality and relevance.
- Follows the journal's author guidelines and submission requirements.
- Includes appropriate citations, declarations and ethical information, where applicable.
- Raises any apparent concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, research integrity or other ethical matters.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review. Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.
-
3. External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are considered for external peer review in accordance with IJTE's editorial procedures.
Primary research articles should undergo evaluation by independent reviewers with relevant subject and articles publication expertise before a final publication decision is made. Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, technical or methodological soundness, interpretation of results, contribution to knowledge, quality of presentation and relevance to technical education.
Other manuscript categories, including review articles, case studies, technical papers and invited contributions, are handled according to their category-specific editorial requirements. Any exception to the normal review process must be consistent with the journal's published policy and clearly justified.
-
4. Review Model
IJTE shall identify its review model clearly so that authors understand how manuscripts are assessed.
Review model adopted by IJTE: IJTE follows a double-blind review model.
Double-blind review: Authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed, to the extent practicable.
-
5. Selection and Number of Reviewers
Authors submitting manuscripts to IJTE are requested to suggest the names of two potential expert reviewers through the journal's online submission portal. The suggested reviewers should have relevant subject expertise and appropriate academic or professional qualifications to evaluate the submitted manuscript objectively.
The selection and appointment of reviewers rest entirely with the IJTE editorial body. Reviewers may be selected either from the journal's existing reviewer database or from the reviewers suggested by the authors. The editorial body is not obligated to appoint the reviewers suggested by the authors and may select other qualified experts, as appropriate.
All selected reviewers must have relevant subject expertise and be able to provide an independent, impartial and objective assessment of the manuscript. The editorial body should consider potential conflicts of interest before assigning a manuscript for review. Where a suggested reviewer has a conflict of interest or cannot provide an independent assessment, that reviewer will not be appointed.
The normal number of independent reviewers sought for each manuscript is ONE. If the reviews received are contradictory, insufficient or inconclusive, the editorial body may seek an additional independent review.
The editorial body retains full responsibility for reviewer selection, evaluation of review reports and the final editorial decision.
-
6. Review Criteria
Reviewers may be asked to assess the following aspects, as relevant to the manuscript:
- Relevance to the scope of IJTE.
- Originality and significance of the contribution.
- Adequacy of the literature review and use of relevant references.
- Appropriateness of the research design, methods, analysis and interpretation.
- Accuracy and clarity of data, tables, figures and conclusions.
- Technical quality and scholarly presentation.
- Compliance with relevant research and publication ethics.
- Overall suitability for publication in the journal.
The criteria may be adapted to the manuscript type, including research papers, review articles and other scholarly contributions. A “Reviewer Evaluation Format” will also be provided along with the manuscript to each reviewer.
-
7. Editorial Decisions
After considering the review reports and the manuscript, the responsible editor may make one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any required final checks.
- Minor revision: Limited changes are required before a final decision.
- Major revision: Substantial changes are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo further review.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.
These categories describe the available decision types; IJTE should use only the categories employed in its actual editorial workflow.
The receipt of favourable reviewer recommendations does not automatically guarantee acceptance. The editor makes the final decision after considering the evidence, reviewer comments, journal standards and any applicable ethical concerns.
-
8. Revision and Reassessment
When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript within the specified period, together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where an author disagrees with a comment, the response should provide a reasoned explanation.
The editor may assess the revised manuscript directly or forward it to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for further evaluation. Further rounds of revision may be requested when necessary.
Failure to submit a revision within the specified period may result in closure of the submission, subject to the journal's procedures. A revised manuscript is not automatically accepted.
-
9. Reviewer Confidentiality and Conduct
Reviewers must treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential. They must not share, reproduce or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage without appropriate authorization.
Reviews should be objective, respectful, specific and supported by scholarly reasoning. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited and alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, unreliable data or other possible ethical concerns.
Reviewers must not use discriminatory, insulting or irrelevant comments and should decline assignments when they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the required timeframe or have a conflict of interest.
-
10. Conflicts of Interest
Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose any financial, professional, personal, institutional or other relationship that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the review or editorial decision.
A reviewer with a relevant conflict must inform the editor and decline the assignment where impartiality may be compromised. An editor with a conflict must not manage the manuscript; responsibility should be transferred to an appropriate independent editor.
Authors must disclose relevant conflicts in their submissions. The editorial team will assess disclosures and take suitable measures to preserve the fairness and independence of the review process.
-
11. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a factual error, a material misunderstanding or a procedural irregularity may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official editorial contact channel.
Appeals should identify the grounds for reconsideration and include relevant supporting information. Where appropriate, the appeal will be assessed by an editor or editorial representative who was not directly responsible for the original decision.
An appeal does not guarantee a reversal of the decision. The journal may decline appeals that do not provide substantive grounds for reconsideration.
Complaints about reviewer conduct or the integrity of the editorial process will be assessed fairly and confidentially, as far as practicable.
-
12. Ethical Concerns During Review
If a manuscript raises concerns about plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship, data integrity, ethical approval or other potential misconduct, the editorial team may seek clarification and supporting documentation from the authors.
Where warranted, the journal may pause the review, reject the manuscript or take other appropriate action in accordance with its publication ethics policy. Serious concerns may be referred to the relevant institution or authority when justified.
-
13. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, ethical compliance and the evidence available through the editorial process. Commercial, personal or institutional considerations must not improperly influence reviewer selection or publication decisions.
The editorial team is responsible for maintaining the integrity and consistency of the peer-review process.
-
14. Contact
Questions or concerns about the peer-review process may be sent to:
Editorial Office: Indian Journal of Technical Education (IJTE)
Email: editor@ijteonline.in
Website: https://www.ijteonline.in/
Policy review: This policy should be reviewed periodically and updated whenever the journal's actual editorial procedures change.
