Back To Top

foto1 foto2 foto3 foto4 foto5

InjET follows a double-blind peer-review process. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by journal editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.


In the peer-review process, three referees independently evaluate the scientific quality of the submitted manuscripts. Authors are encouraged to indicate in the Referral form using the Manuscript Submission Kit the names of three potential reviewers, but the editors will make the final choice. The editors are not, however, bound by these suggestions.


Manuscripts should be written so that they are intelligible to the professional reader who is not a specialist in the particular field. They should be written in a clear, concise, direct style. Where contributions are judged as acceptable for publication on the basis of content, the Editor reserves the right to modify the typescripts to eliminate ambiguity and repetition and improve communication between author and reader. If extensive alterations are required, the manuscript will be returned to the author for revision.


The Journal’s review process

What happens to a manuscript once it is submitted to InjET ? Typically, there are seven steps to the editorial review process:


1.       The executive editor and the editorial board examine the paper to determine whether it is appropriate for the journal and should be reviewed. If not appropriate, the manuscript is rejected outright and the author is informed.


2.       The executive editor sends the article-identifying information having been removed, to three reviewers. Typically, one of these is from the Journal's editorial board. Others are specialists in the subject matter represented by the article. The executive editor asks them to complete the review in three weeks and encloses two forms: (a) referral form B and (b) reviewer’s comment form along with reviewer's guidelines. Comments to authors are about the appropriateness and adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework, literature review, method, results and discussion, and conclusions. Reviewers often include suggestions for strengthening of the manuscript. Comments to the editor are in the nature of the significance of the work and its potential contribution to the literature.


3.       The executive editor, in consultation with the editor-in-chief, examines the reviews and decides whether to reject the manuscript, invite the author(s) to revise and resubmit the manuscript, or seek additional reviews. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial Board, who reserves the right to refuse any material for publication. In rare instances, the manuscript is accepted with almost no revision. Almost without exception, reviewers' comments (to the author) are forwarded to the author. If a revision is indicated, the editor provides guidelines for attending to the reviewers' suggestions and perhaps additional advice about revising the manuscript.


4.       The authors decide whether and how to address the reviewers' comments and criticisms and the editor's concerns. The authors submit a revised version of the paper to the executive editor along with specific information describing how they have answered' the concerns of the reviewers and the editor.


5.       The executive editor sends the revised paper out for review. Typically, at least one of the original reviewers will be asked to examine the article.


6.       When the reviewers have completed their work, the executive editor in consultation with the editorial board and the editor-inchief examine their comments and decide whether the paper is ready to be published, needs another round of revisions, or should be rejected.



7.       If the decision is to accept, the paper is sent to that Press and the article should appear in print in approximately two to three months. The Publisher ensures that the paper adheres to the correct style (in-text citations, the reference list, and tables are typical areas of concern, clarity, and grammar). The authors are asked to respond to any queries by the Publisher. Following these corrections, page proofs are mailed to the corresponding authors for their final approval. At this point, only essential changes are accepted. Finally, the article appears in the pages of the Journal and is posted on-line.