Peer Review Policy
JDDIEA uses structured editorial screening and peer review to ensure quality, originality, and real engineering validation.
Review model
JDDIEA typically follows double-blind peer review (reviewers do not see author identity and authors do not see reviewer identity), unless a special issue explicitly states a different model.
Reviewer count
Most submissions are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when needed (e.g., interdisciplinary work, conflicting reviews, or high-impact claims).
Step-by-step workflow
- Desk screening: scope fit, completeness, ethics basics, and originality check.
- Handling editor assignment: an editor is assigned to manage review.
- Peer review: reviewers evaluate novelty, soundness, and validation.
- Editorial decision: based on reviews and journal criteria.
- Revision rounds: authors respond to reviewer comments when required.
- Final checks: formatting, references, and publication readiness.
Typical timelines
- Desk screening: typically 2–5 days
- First decision: typically 2–4 weeks (depends on reviewer availability)
- Revision time: depends on revision type and author response speed
Timelines are indicative and may vary for complex papers, multiple revisions, or when additional reviewers are needed.
Decision types
Editorial decisions typically fall into one of the following categories:
- Accept
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject (may include guidance for resubmission as a new manuscript)
Confidentiality & conflicts
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and must not share, distribute, or use the content for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline review if they have a conflict of interest (e.g., close collaboration, institutional relationship, or competitive interests).
Ready to submit? Please follow author instructions and ethics requirements.