Peer Review Process
Authors should present their papers honestly without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or inappropriate data manipulation. Anonymous referees evaluate submitted papers for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. The Editor shall inform you of the review results as soon as possible, hopefully in 4 to 6 weeks. Journal of Earth Energy Engineering (JEEE) uses a Double-Blind Review policy in which the reviewer's name is always concealed from the submitting author. Papers will be sent for anonymous review by at least two reviewers who will either be members of the Editorial Board or others of similar standing in the field. To shorten the review process and respond quickly to authors, the Editors may triage a submission and come to a decision without sending the paper for external review. The Editors’ decision is final, and no correspondence can be entered into concerning manuscripts considered unsuitable for publication in this journal. All correspondence, including notification of the Editors’ decision and requests for revisions, will be sent by email.
To be accepted, an article must pass the following peer-review conditions:
- the subject is included in the journal's scope
- the papers must follow the manuscript's guideline of JEEE
- the manuscripts are sent only via online submission. All of the authors must register or log in first before submitting the manuscript
- the manuscripts must have been approved by the editor-in-chief of JEEE
- the manuscripts will be reviewed by reviewers after approval decision by the editor-in-chief
- the journal editor will make a decision (Accepted/Revisions required/Rejected) for the manuscripts considering the reviewers' recommendation.
The main factors reviewers should provide advice on are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the Journal of Earth Energy Engineering readership. Questions to consider are:
- Is the submission original?
- Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
- Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
- Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
- Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
- Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
- Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
- Is the methodology presented in the manuscript, and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
- Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
- Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
- Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?
- Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader?
Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed comments. Several things to consider for reviewers are:
- 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 overall presentation quality.
- Confirm whether you feel the paper's subject 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 reviewer's job to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
- A reviewer 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.