Publishes articles that emphasize research, development and application within the fields of engineering. All manuscripts are pre-reviewed by the editor, and if appropriate, sent for blind peer review. Contributions must be original, not previously or simultaneously published elsewhere, and are critically reviewed before they are published. Papers, which must be written in English, should have sound grammar and proper terminologies. IJAER would take much care in making your article published without much delay with your kind cooperation.
The papers must be submitted to International Journal of Advances in Engineering Research (IJAER) electronically at submission@ijaer.com The manuscript must be accompanied by a signed statement that it has been neither published nor currently submitted for publication elsewhere. The manuscript should be written in English and a minimum standard of the proficiency in the English language should be met before submission to the Chief Editor. Manuscripts may fall into several categories including full articles, solicited reviews or commentary, and unsolicited reviews or commentary related to the core of engineering. The detailed inputs are given in Author Guidelines.
IJAER hopes that eminent researchers, PhD. scholars, academician, industrialists, consultancy etc. would make use of this journal publication for the rocketing development of engineering path, ahead.
Before submitting the manuscript, the author should have his/her paper proofread for grammatical and spelling corrections as well as the readability of the paper. International Journal of Advances in Engineering Research (IJAER) is a double-blind referred academic research journal. Each manuscript would be reviewed by the editor-in-chief for general suitability. If it is judged suitable, a double-blind review process takes place.
As our journal publishes twelve times a year. So, you can submit your research as per your convenient.
After the processing of the paper is over we will upload the paper within 7 days to our website and if rejected by our expert, you can further work on it as per the feed back. It's appreciable to submit manuscript promptly such that feedback's can be implemented indue time. We advice not to submit the same paper to any Journal until our acceptance or rejection is not confirm.
Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the editor-in-chief then decides whether the article/paper/case should be acceptable. The evaluation period is short. Usually we evaluate manuscript within two to three weeks or less. Please remind us if you do not receive the review results after two weeks. It is requested that authors should have their paper checked with a native English speaker colleague or professional for English syntax, grammar, etc before submission. Manuscript with serious writing problems cannot be accepted.
REVIEWER GUIDELINES
This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
Why review?
- Help authors improve their papers by providing your professional expertise.
- Play an important role in maintaining a good, rigorous peer-review process.
- Expand your awareness of the current research emerging within your field.
- Build relationships and improve your academic and professional profile.
- Improve your own writing skills.
Timing
If you are reviewing a manuscript, please aim to complete your review within a week. If you need more time or are unable to perform the review, please notify us immediately so that we can keep the authors informed and assign alternate reviewers if necessary.
Confidentiality
In conducting your review, please remember that the manuscript you have been invited to review is a privileged (confidential) communication. Therefore, you may not circulate, discuss, quote, cite, or refer to the unpublished work, nor may you use information from the manuscript to advance your own work or instruction. Manuscripts may not be given to students for educational purposes.
Reviewing Manuscripts Previously Handled
If you are invited to review a manuscript that you reviewed at another journal, please consider the manuscript as a new submission, taking into account that (a) it may have been revised since the last time you evaluated it, and (b) PLOS ONE’s criteria for publication may differ from those of the other journal.
When submitting your review, please note to the editor that you reviewed a previous version of the manuscript at another journal. The editors may ask you to provide your original review. Before doing so, please obtain permission from the previous journal.
Key Issues to Remember
- Is the manuscript important?
- Is the manuscript fixable? How could it be altered?
- What are the key points and what are the more particular points and are these differentiated?
- In general, good reviews do not exceed 3 pages single spaced (there are always exceptions).
- Keep in mind that you too are an author and ask yourself what would a good review look like if this were your manuscript?
- Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?
Provide detailed comments
- These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
- If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
- Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
- It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
- A referee may disagree with the author’s opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
- Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.
Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to the author isn’t always easy and comments should be carefully constructed so that the author fully understands what actions they need to take to improve their paper. For example, generalized or vague statements should be avoided along with any negative comments which aren’t relevant or constructive.
Make a recommendation
Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal will vary but the key decisions are:
- Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
- Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
