Scientific Engineering

Scientific Engineering uses editorial screening followed by single-anonymous external peer review for research content. Reviewers may know the identities of the authors, while reviewer identities are normally kept confidential unless the reviewer and editor agree otherwise.

1. Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial office checks whether the submission is complete, readable and accompanied by the required author and ethics information. Incomplete submissions may be returned before academic assessment.

2. Editorial Screening

An editor assesses the manuscript’s fit with the journal, technical readiness, originality, clarity, ethical compliance and suitability for external review. A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is outside scope, insufficiently developed, duplicative, ethically problematic or not presented clearly enough for reliable assessment.

3. External Review

Research Articles, Review Articles, Engineering Case Studies, Technical Notes and Extended Conference Papers are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers should not have a conflict of interest or a close recent relationship with the authors. Additional review may be sought when reports conflict or specialised expertise is required.

4. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are asked to consider the manuscript’s technical and methodological soundness, originality, clarity, evidence, limitations, ethical reporting and contribution to engineering knowledge or practice. Reviewers advise the editor; they do not make the final publication decision.

5. Editorial Decision

The handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports and author responses. Possible decisions include reject, major revision, minor revision or accept. Acceptance is granted only after the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal’s requirements. A request for revision is not a guarantee of acceptance.

6. Revision and Re-review

Authors should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. Major revisions and technically significant changes may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional reviewers.

7. Invited, Conference and Special-Issue Manuscripts

Invitation, conference presentation, institutional cooperation or inclusion in a thematic call does not guarantee publication. Research manuscripts connected with conferences, projects or special issues undergo the same applicable editorial checks and external peer review as regular submissions. Guest editors and organisers cannot override the journal’s editorial decision.

8. Editorial and Non-Research Content

Editorials, journal announcements, corrections, retraction notices and similar record-maintenance content may be assessed by the editors rather than externally reviewed. The review status of such content will be clearly labelled. Perspectives and commentaries may receive editorial assessment and external review where appropriate.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant personal, professional, institutional or financial conflicts. A conflicted editor will not handle the manuscript. Submissions from editors or board members will be managed by an independent editor and will receive no preferential treatment.

10. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and review communications are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal advantage or share it without permission. Confidential manuscripts should not be uploaded to unauthorised external AI tools or services.

11. Timelines

Review and publication times vary according to subject, reviewer availability, revision requirements and production needs. Scientific Engineering does not guarantee acceptance or fixed decision and publication times. Authors will be informed of material delays and may withdraw a manuscript before acceptance by writing to the editorial office.

12. Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by submitting a concise, evidence-based explanation to se@iaoalliance.org. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision where practicable. Disagreement with reviewer comments alone is not sufficient; the appeal should identify a material error, procedural concern or relevant evidence.