Editorial Policy

(i). Editorial Board structure:

Editor-in-Chief, and Advisory Board members make up the IJETP publications' Editorial Board. Because the Editor-in-Chief is the board's chairperson, he or she has final authority in all matters.

Global experts with good academic records of accomplishment and competence in the specific journal subject are incorporated into the Editorial Board. The number of members of the Editorial Board is unrestricted.

Members of the editorial board must meet the following requirements:

  • Must have a Ph.D. degree in the relevant subject
  • Must have a good publication record
  • Must hold some academic position in Universities, Research Institutes, or other such organizations


(ii). Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board responsibilities


  • The Editor-in-Chief of the journal must provide direction to all Editorial Board members.
  • The Editor-in-Chief evaluates any submitted manuscript at the preliminary stage for acceptability of the subject based on the scope of the journal and conformity with a specific article type. The IJETP editorial office will conduct a thorough plagiarism check on all submitted manuscripts from the start. The report's similarity index should not surpass 18%. 
  • The Editor-in-Chief has the right to be involved in any stage of the process and to make the final decision on any publication-related matter.
  • Editor-in-Chief advises Associate Editors and the selected reviewers that they are not permitted to use any part of the work they are reviewing in any form. Reviewers should also be notified that the assignments they are working on are completely confidential.
  • Editors Editor-in-Chief is responsible for communicating the journal's expectations to reviewers, including the scope, quality, and timeliness of the review, to ensure an effective, fair, and constructive assessment of the assigned submission.
  • Editor-in-Chief must provide relevant information about the target population and their preferences. To put it another way, Editor-in-Chief’s creative input will aid in comprehending readers and their choices within the framework of the subject.
  • Editor-in-Chief shall convene Editorial Board meetings, which are organized by the Editorial Office to discuss ways to improve the journal. 


(iii). Code of Conduct

  •  Any assignment should not entail a conflict of interest for the designated Associate Editor. If this is the case, he or she should decline the assignment and inform the Editorial Office of the reason.
  • Each submission must be treated objectively and transparently by each Associate Editor.
  • If the Editor-in-Chief notifies the assigned Editor about any information at any point of the publication process for an assigned manuscript, the Associate Editor must communicate as soon as possible.
  • Associate Editors, in collaboration with the publisher, must ensure that the entire process runs well. 
  • Editorial Board members, along with the publisher, are responsible for the timely publication of accepted articles.
  • The Editor-in-Chief should make sure those articles accepted for publication have been peer-reviewed.
  • The Editor-in-Chief should avoid making decisions about manuscripts in which he or she has a potential conflict of interest. In such cases, a senior member of the Editorial Board will be tasked with monitoring peer review and making acceptance or rejection decisions.
  • The Editor-in-Chief must ensure that Editorial Board members who have a conflict of interest are not participating in the peer-review or decision-making process of any manuscript.
  • While the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members are allowed to publish in the journal, the number of articles must be limited to ensure that other authors contribute the majority of the articles.
  • The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board must provide authors with professional assistance. Correspondence should be addressed in a timely and respectful manner, and peer review should be completed efficiently and thoroughly. There must be systems in place to ensure that editing staff absences do not result in a reduction in author service.
  • The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial members who run a closed peer-review mechanism for the journal must ensure that peer reviewers remain anonymous.


(iv). Peer Review Policy: Reviewer’s responsibility


Important factors to be noted by a reviewer:


  • Manuscripts submitted to IJETP  are peer-reviewed in a double-blind method. The names of the reviewers and authors are concealed during this process. 
  • Per manuscript, up to two impartial reviewers will be assigned.
  • The article must be relevant to the reviewer's area of expertise. If you find that the article does not align with your relevant expertise as a reviewer, he or she should notify the editing office as soon as possible.
  • Timely review and publishing provide professional benefits. As a result, it's critical to stick to deadlines and submit the report on time. Within 14 days, the process of reviewing the article and making recommendations must be completed. 
  • Going beyond this limit will cause a delay in the editor's decision, as well as a delay in publication.
  • When accepting a reviewing request, the reviewer undertakes not to share any of the manuscript's information with anyone. Any reviewer must maintain their anonymity.
  • Reviewer comments must be reasonable. You must hold your points with firm logical reasons.
  • The IJETP -Peer Review Form and manuscripts will be submitted together to the reviewers for writing their evaluation report.
  • Depending on the article type, assigned reviewers are responsible for analyzing a manuscript's technical aspects as well as its correct organization. The Editors and Authors should be able to grasp the reviewer's comments because they should be brief and to the point.
  • Reviewers are required to match the article with the standards of the journal The evaluation report has to be shared with the editor.
  • After evaluation of the manuscript, the reviewers will decide:
  • Accept
  • Accept with minor revision
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject (Decline with Justification).
  • If the decision is 'Accept with Minor Revision' or 'Major Revision,' the author has 7 or 14 days, respectively, from the date of official notification of the decision to resubmit the corrected work.
  • Upon resubmission, if the Editorial Board is satisfied that any suggested revisions have been made, it may choose to send them back to the reviewers, or it may make a decision based on its expertise.
  • The Editorial Board has the discretion of rejecting a manuscript whose author fails to revise upon such recommendation.
  • In exceptional situations, contributors may be asked to recommend referees who work in the same discipline for review. The Editorial Board, on the other hand, has the final say over the reviewers.