Peer Review Policy

Double Blind Peer Review

The Journal of Engineering and Philosophy upholds sector standards of international excellence in academic publishing, in accordance with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This journal maintains a double-blind peer review policy, in which both the reviewers and the author/s are anonymous. To facilitate this, authors have to anonymize their manuscripts to ensure that their identity has not been given away in the article's content.

Peer review is an important process of evaluation, designed to keep the quality of scholarly work high. The process aims to give constructive feedback to the authors, so that their work can become of the highest academic standard possible. Peer reviews are also helping editors to decide the paper's suitability for publication in the journal. As a principle, The Journal of Engineering and Philosophy will not accept peer reviews that contain harsh or discriminatory comments, that are unduly negative or could be unduly biased toward a specific ideological or disciplinary position, or due to a range of reasons that result in an over-critical judgment. We wish to support scholars, particularly those who are at an early stage of their research career or have not benefitted from training at an elite institution. Our peer review system is primarily designed to support authors in developing their work, and therefore peer reviewers must provide overall supportive and constructive criticism in aiding the author/s to develop and improve their submission and learn how better to compose a publishable article.

All submissions undergo a minimum of two independent double-blind peer reviews by qualified experts in the relevant field, in addition to an initial editorial screening for scope, originality, and plagiarism/similarity prior to review.

Reviewer Qualification and Selection

Reviewers are selected based on demonstrated subject-matter expertise, an appropriate publication record, and relevant academic or professional standing (typically a doctoral degree or equivalent research experience). Reviewers may be drawn from the journal's Editorial Board, recommended by editors, or suggested by authors subject to editorial approval. Editors verify that a proposed reviewer has no undisclosed conflict of interest with the author(s) before assigning a manuscript.

Timely Reviews

We ask reviewers to provide review reports in a timely manner, in order to help the journal to provide a high quality publishing service that benefits the global scientific community. Reviewers are typically asked to complete their assessment within 4–6 weeks of accepting an invitation to review. Please contact the editorial office if you need a deadline extension of your review.

A Step by Step Reviewer's Guide

Investigate the article's content in the light of the mission statement of The Journal of Engineering and Philosophy and the guidelines for authors:
- Does the article meet the submission criteria (aims, length, scope and presentation) of the journal?
Make an assessment of the article:
- Is the research relevant?
  - Is the information sufficiently novel and of potential interest to an international readership of researchers, practitioners, and scholars in engineering and philosophy?
  - Does the research contribute to the body of knowledge and theory in the field?
- Is the methodology correct?
  - Is the research question clearly formulated and underpinned by a state-of-the-art description of what is already known through the literature?
  - Are the methods for answering the research question clearly defined and adequate?
  - Is the data analysis, be it quantitative or qualitative or mixed methods, accurate and in line with scholarly standards?
  - Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results?
- What is the quality of the presentation?
  - Is the article clearly structured, using subheadings and suitable signposts?
  - Are the important concepts defined?
  - Is the English language level sufficient?
  - Have all the references and sources been presented in the publisher's house style?
- Is the article scientifically sound?
  - Is the same information already published before, either by the same author or by another scientist?
  - Are the data robust enough to warrant the conclusions?
  - Are the references to other scholarly works sufficient and complete?
  - Is there a concluding paragraph discussing shortcomings, limitations, practical applications and suggestions for further research?
  - Is the article free of fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior?
Write a review report:
- Follow the steps on the review form.
  Keep in mind: As a reviewer, you may disagree with the author's opinions, but if these are consistent with the available evidence, you should allow them to stand. If you provide feedback, you are required to give constructive criticism. Positive feedback as well as negative feedback can help an author to improve the manuscript.
- Make a recommendation:
  - Accept: if the manuscript can be published in its current form.
  - Accept after minor changes: if the manuscript needs revisions that you estimate are feasible by the authors, such as pertaining to definitions of concepts, references to recent literature, language issues.
  - Accept only after major revisions and a new review: for example, when the theoretical framework is inadequate; when the research questions are ill-defined; when the methodology is unsound; when important data is lacking; when more research or additional data analysis is necessary; when the conclusions are not warranted by the data; when the style of writing is unscholarly; and other issues you estimate will take a serious effort to address.
  - Reject: if the paper is not suitable for publication within this journal or if the revisions that would have to be undertaken are too fundamental.
Some things to keep in mind:
- Use appropriate language in addressing your comments to the author. Carefully construct your comments so that the author understands fully what to improve. Generalized and vague statements should be avoided, along with negative comments that are not supported with arguments. Lectito editors never edit reviewer comments and thus we ask you to use appropriate language. Confidential comments to the editors can be made on the review form in the special box assigned for it.
- The Journal of Engineering and Philosophy requires that reviewers give suggestions to the author how to improve clarity, succinctness and overall quality of the manuscript particularly in the case of required revisions or reject.

Confidentiality

Reviewers should not share the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, with someone else. Double blind peer review is a confidential process in which both the author and reviewer should be careful to keep the content confidential. Reviewers are requested to inform the editorial office if they prefer a colleague to write the review on their behalf.

Appeals Process

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal, written appeal to the editorial office, clearly stating the grounds for the appeal and providing point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor with no prior involvement in the original decision. The outcome of an appeal is final. Appeals based solely on dissatisfaction with the outcome, without new scholarly evidence or a demonstrated procedural error, will not be considered.

Special Issue Policy

The Journal of Engineering and Philosophy follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in relation to editorial independence, special issues, guest editorial responsibilities, peer-review integrity, conflicts of interest, and publication ethics.

The Journal of Engineering and Philosophy may publish special issues devoted to significant, emerging, or interdisciplinary topics that fall within the journal's aims and scope. A special issue may be proposed by members of the Editorial Board, prospective Guest Editors, scholarly organizations, or other qualified researchers.

All special-issue proposals must be reviewed and formally approved by the Editor-in-Chief before a call for papers is announced. Proposals should include:

the proposed title and rationale for the special issue;
its relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
the names, affiliations, qualifications, and brief biographies of the proposed Guest Editors;
a preliminary list of topics or potential contributions;
the proposed submission and publication schedule; and
a plan for promoting the call for papers to an international scholarly audience.

Approval of a special-issue proposal does not guarantee the acceptance or publication of any manuscript.

Peer Review and Editorial Oversight

Manuscripts submitted to a special issue must meet the same academic, ethical, and editorial standards as manuscripts submitted to regular issues. All submissions undergo:

an initial editorial screening for relevance, originality, scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal's submission requirements;
plagiarism and similarity screening where appropriate;
double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts in the relevant field;
revision, when required, in response to the reviewers' and editors' comments; and
a final editorial decision based on the manuscript's quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

Special-issue manuscripts are not accepted solely because they were invited or because they form part of an approved collection. The journal reserves the right to reject any manuscript that does not meet its scholarly or ethical standards.

Guest Editors may coordinate the review process and make recommendations; however, the Editor-in-Chief retains oversight of the entire special issue and has final responsibility for all publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief may request additional reviews, appoint an independent editor, reject a recommended manuscript, or discontinue a special issue when necessary to protect the journal's standards and integrity.

Conflicts of Interest (Special Issues)

Guest Editors must disclose any personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their editorial judgment.

A Guest Editor must not manage the peer review of:

their own manuscript;
a manuscript authored by a close collaborator, student, supervisor, colleague, family member, or institutional associate where a conflict exists;
a manuscript in which they have a financial, professional, or personal interest; or
any submission for which their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Such manuscripts will be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The Guest Editor will have no access to reviewer identities, reviewer reports, editorial discussions, or the decision-making process for that submission.

The number of articles authored by Guest Editors or members of the journal's Editorial Board in a special issue must remain limited and must not compromise the independence or credibility of the collection.

Transparency and Publication

Published special issues will clearly identify:

the title and theme of the special issue;
the names and affiliations of the Guest Editors;
the editorial oversight arrangements;
the origin of the special issue, where relevant; and
any funding, sponsorship, or competing interests associated with the collection.

Commercial sponsorship, institutional support, or external funding will not influence peer review or editorial decisions. Any relevant support must be transparently disclosed.

The journal may cancel, postpone, restructure, or convert a proposed special issue into a regular collection if submission numbers, manuscript quality, ethical concerns, missed deadlines, or editorial circumstances prevent the issue from meeting the journal's standards.

Guest Editor Policy

Guest Editors are appointed to provide scholarly expertise and assist in developing and coordinating an approved special issue. They must be recognized researchers with relevant subject expertise, an appropriate publication record, and experience in scholarly peer review or editorial work.

The appointment of Guest Editors is subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief. The journal may request a curriculum vitae, publication record, institutional profile, ORCID identifier, conflict-of-interest declaration, or other information before confirming an appointment.

Responsibilities of Guest Editors

Guest Editors are expected to:

develop the intellectual focus and rationale of the special issue;
prepare the call for papers in collaboration with the journal;
ensure that the proposed topic aligns with the journal's aims and scope;
promote the call fairly and internationally without guaranteeing acceptance;
conduct an initial assessment of submissions when authorized by the Editor-in-Chief;
recommend suitably qualified and independent reviewers;
ensure that manuscripts receive rigorous and timely double-blind peer review;
evaluate authors' revisions and reviewer reports objectively;
provide evidence-based editorial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief;
monitor deadlines and communicate appropriately with authors, reviewers, and the journal office;
protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer-review records;
disclose and appropriately manage all competing interests;
report suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated data, manipulated citations, unethical research, or other misconduct;
ensure that invited and unsolicited submissions are evaluated according to the same standards;
propose the final order of accepted articles; and
prepare an editorial introduction summarizing the special issue, when requested.

Limitations of the Guest Editor Role

Guest Editors may recommend editorial decisions but do not have independent authority to guarantee publication or make an unreviewable final acceptance decision. Final decisions remain with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor.

Guest Editors must not:

guarantee acceptance to prospective authors;
bypass or weaken the journal's peer-review procedures;
select reviewers who have inappropriate relationships with the authors;
pressure authors to cite the Guest Editors, the journal, or unrelated publications;
manipulate citations or journal metrics;
use unpublished manuscripts or confidential information for personal advantage;
allow commercial, political, institutional, or personal considerations to influence decisions;
require authors to include irrelevant citations;
manage manuscripts for which they have a conflict of interest; or
interfere with an independent editorial decision.

Guest Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts to unauthorized third-party platforms or generative artificial intelligence tools. They must comply with the journal's confidentiality, peer-review, research-integrity, and artificial-intelligence policies.

Manuscripts Authored by Guest Editors

Guest Editors may submit manuscripts to their special issue only when such submissions are academically justified and remain limited in number. Their manuscripts will be handled independently by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor without a conflict of interest.

Guest Editors will not participate in selecting reviewers, viewing confidential reports, recommending decisions, or making final decisions concerning their own manuscripts.

Removal or Replacement of a Guest Editor

The Editor-in-Chief and publisher may remove or replace a Guest Editor when there is:

failure to follow the journal's editorial or ethical policies;
unmanaged conflict of interest;
breach of confidentiality;
inappropriate interference with peer review;
excessive delay or failure to meet agreed deadlines;
citation manipulation or coercive citation practices;
discriminatory, abusive, or unprofessional conduct;
suspected research or publication misconduct; or
any conduct that may compromise the credibility of the journal or special issue.

When a Guest Editor is removed or becomes unable to continue, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a replacement, assume direct responsibility for the issue, revise its timetable, or discontinue the special issue.

Editorial Independence

The Journal of Engineering and Philosophy is committed to editorial independence, academic freedom, impartial peer review, and transparent decision-making.

All editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, ethical integrity, relevance, and contribution of the submitted work. Decisions are made without discrimination based on an author's nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, career status, political views, disability, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Authority for Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility and authority for decisions concerning:

whether a manuscript is sent for peer review;
the selection or approval of reviewers;
requests for revision;
acceptance or rejection;
the appointment and supervision of Guest Editors;
corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or withdrawals; and
the resolution of appeals, complaints, and publication-ethics concerns.

Associate Editors, Section Editors, and Guest Editors may manage submissions and make recommendations within their assigned responsibilities. However, the Editor-in-Chief may review, modify, or overrule a recommendation when necessary to maintain scholarly quality, procedural fairness, or publication integrity.

Conflicts of Interest (Editorial Independence)

Editors must disclose any relationship or interest that could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their impartiality. An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must recuse themselves from the manuscript and transfer responsibility to an independent editor.

Editors must not participate in decisions concerning their own work or manuscripts submitted by close collaborators, students, supervisors, family members, or others with whom an appropriate editorial distance cannot be maintained.

Confidentiality and Accountability

Editors must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, peer-review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information. Confidential material may be shared only with individuals directly involved in the legitimate editorial process.

Editorial independence does not remove accountability. Editors must follow the journal's published policies, apply standards consistently, document important decisions, respond appropriately to complaints and appeals, and correct the scholarly record when necessary.

Where an editorial dispute cannot be resolved internally, the matter may be referred to an independent senior editor, the publisher's research-integrity representative, or another appropriate independent body.

Submit My Manuscript