Peer Review Process
TENAR (Technology, Engineering, and Artificial Intelligence) implements a double-anonymous peer review process to ensure objectivity, scientific quality, and publication integrity. In this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process, ensuring that assessments are conducted independently and free from conflicts of interest. All submitted manuscripts will undergo several evaluation stages, as follows:
1. Administrative Screening (Editorial Screening)
After a manuscript is received through the journal's system, the editorial team conducts an initial check to ensure that it meets administrative and technical requirements, including:
- Compliance with the journal's template and writing guidelines.
- Completeness of author identification and article metadata.
- Suitability of the topic to the journal's focus and scope.
- Similarity is checked using plagiarism detection software.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the author for revision or rejected before proceeding to the review process.
2. Evaluation by the Editor
The editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality, research novelty, topic relevance, and contribution to the advancement of science. At this stage, the editor can decide to:
- Proceed to the review process;
- Request a pre-review revision; or
- Reject the manuscript if it does not meet journal standards.
3. Review Process by Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the editor's evaluation will be sent to at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the research field. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several aspects, including:
- Novelty and originality of the research.
- Clarity of objectives and problem formulation.
- Adequacy of research methods.
- Validity of analysis and discussion.
- Quality of presentation of data and research results.
- Relevance of references used.
- Scientific contribution to the development of technology, engineering, and artificial intelligence.
Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to the editor.
4. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewer's review, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
- Accepted (Accepted without revision)
- Minor Revision (Minor Revision)
- Major Revision (Major Revision)
- Rejected (Rejected)
The final decision rests solely with the editor, taking into account all input from the reviewers.
5. Revision Process
If revisions are necessary, the author must revise the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments and include a response document explaining any changes made. The editor may resubmit the revised manuscript to the reviewers for further assessment, if necessary.
6. Final Decision and Publication
After the entire review and revision process is complete, the editor makes a final decision regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication. Accepted manuscripts will undergo copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final proofreading before being published online according to the journal's publication schedule.
TENAR is committed to conducting a professional, transparent, fair, and timely peer review process while upholding the ethics of scientific publication in accordance with international standards.
