Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Engineering, Information Technology and Innovation (RETII) are evaluated based on their scientific quality, originality, relevance, and alignment with the journal's focus and scope.

The evaluation process consists of two stages:

First Stage – Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment of manuscripts, considering their alignment with the journal's focus and scope, compliance with submission guidelines, overall quality of the text, and adherence to ethical principles in scientific publishing.

At this stage, text similarity detection tools may also be employed to identify potential cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other forms of academic misconduct.

Manuscripts that do not meet the established requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected by the editorial team.

Second Stage – Peer Review

Manuscripts approved during the preliminary screening are forwarded to experts in the relevant subject areas, following a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation.

It is recommended that each manuscript be evaluated by at least two reviewers, selected based on their expertise and qualifications in the relevant field of knowledge.

The following evaluation criteria are considered:

  • Scientific and technological relevance of the topic;

  • Originality and contribution to the field of knowledge;

  • Clarity of objectives and theoretical framework;

  • Appropriateness and rigor of methodological procedures;

  • Consistency of data analysis and discussion of results;

  • Relevance of conclusions in relation to the stated objectives;

  • Quality of scientific writing and references;

  • Compliance with ethical principles in scientific research.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revisions, or rejection of the manuscript.

In cases of conflicting reviews, the editorial team may request a third evaluation.

When revisions are requested, authors must make the necessary changes within the established deadline and submit a revised version of the manuscript, accompanied by appropriate explanations addressing the reviewers' comments.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal's editorial team, based on the reviewers' reports and the criteria established in the editorial policy.

Authors may monitor the progress of the evaluation process through the journal's electronic submission system.