ISSN: 2979-9236|DOI: 10.58190/imiens|Open Access|Peer-Reviewed
Intelligent Methods In Engineering Sciences
Journal Policy & Directives

Reviewer Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

We follow the double blind peer review policy and reviewer should follow the below given guidelines:

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Scope of the Journal

Intelligent Methods in Engineering Sciences (IMIENS) publishes high-quality original research and review articles in the broad domain of intelligent engineering systems. For more details on the journal’s aims and scope, please visit: https://imiens.org/index.php/imiens/focus

Review Criteria

Please evaluate the manuscript based on the following aspects:

1. Scientific Contribution

  • Does the manuscript present original, novel, or significant results, theories, models, or methods?

  • Does it advance knowledge or practice in intelligent or computational engineering systems?

2. Relevance and Scope

  • Is the subject matter clearly aligned with IMIENS's thematic scope?

  • Does the manuscript contribute to one or more of the journal’s primary areas of interest?

3. Title and Abstract

  • Is the title concise, descriptive, and relevant?

  • Does the abstract effectively summarize the objectives, methods, and main results of the work?

4. Methodology and Reproducibility

  • Are the methods clearly described and technically sound?

  • Are the experiments or simulations reproducible based on the information provided?

  • Are the tools, datasets, or algorithms sufficiently detailed?

5. Ethical Standards

  • Does the manuscript meet ethical guidelines regarding data handling, authorship, and research practices?

  • Are ethical approvals or disclosures (e.g., conflict of interest, funding) appropriately stated?

6. Language and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and easy to understand?

  • Are technical terms used correctly and consistently?

  • If language issues exist, do they require minor or major corrections?

7. References

  • Are the references current, relevant, and sufficient to support the study?

  • Are key prior works appropriately cited?

Recommendation Options

Please select one of the following decisions when submitting your review:

  • Accept Submission
    The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and requires no or only minimal changes.

  • Revisions Required
    The manuscript is publishable with minor revisions. The core contribution is valid, but some improvements are needed (e.g., clarifications, small methodological fixes, reference updates).

  • Resubmit for Review
    Substantial revisions are needed. The manuscript has potential, but significant parts (e.g., methodology, analysis, presentation) must be revised. A full second review will be necessary.

  • Resubmit Elsewhere
    The topic or approach may be valid but falls outside the scope or interest of IMIENS. The manuscript may be better suited to another journal.

  • Decline Submission
    The manuscript has major flaws in concept, methodology, or contribution. It is not suitable for publication in its current form.

  • See Comments
    Use this option only if none of the above apply clearly. Explain your reasoning in the comments.

Providing Feedback

  • Use the General Comments to the Author section to give detailed, respectful, and constructive feedback. Highlight strengths as well as areas that need improvement.

  • Address all aspects where you selected "No" in the evaluation form. Provide clear suggestions where possible.

  • Use the Confidential Comments to the Editor section to report any ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism, or contextual information not appropriate for the authors.

Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality

If you have a personal or professional conflict that may affect your objectivity, please notify the editor immediately and decline the review. All manuscripts and review information must be treated as strictly confidential.