The Journal of Sustainable Technologies and Infrastructure Planning is committed to publishing high-quality research that is rigorously peer-reviewed and adheres to the highest standards of academic excellence. The scope of the journal includes a broad range of topics related to sustainable technologies and infrastructure planning, including but not limited to renewable energy, sustainable transportation, green buildings, water management, waste management, and sustainable urban planning. The journal welcomes original research articles, review papers, case studies, and perspectives that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
Current Issue
Vol. 8 No. 4 (2024): Journal of Sustainable Technologies and Infrastructure Planning-2024(4)
Published: 2024-04-01
Articles
Peer-Review Policy of the Journal of Sustainable Technologies and Infrastructure Planning
The Journal of Sustainable Technologies and Infrastructure Planning follows a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, accuracy, and reliability of the research articles it publishes. This process helps maintain the integrity and scholarly standards of the journal while providing authors with constructive feedback to improve their work. The peer-review policy of the journal is as follows:
-
Initial Evaluation: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the journal's editorial board. The board assesses whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and editorial policies. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's criteria or have significant flaws may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to peer review.
-
Double-Blind Peer Review: The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous. This helps ensure an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript based solely on its scientific merit. The editor-in-chief assigns qualified experts in the relevant field as reviewers for each submission.
-
Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, and publication record in the subject area of the manuscript. The journal aims to include reviewers with diverse perspectives to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the submission.
-
Review Process: Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, methodology, results, interpretation, and overall contribution to the field. They provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the study, suggest improvements, and may request additional experiments, data, or clarifications if necessary.
-
Decision Making: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor-in-chief, in consultation with the editorial board, makes a decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. The decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' comments.
-
Revision Process: If revisions are requested, authors are given a specified timeframe to address the reviewers' comments and make necessary revisions to the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or additional reviewers to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed.
-
Final Decision: After the revision process, the editor-in-chief, or an assigned associate editor, makes the final decision regarding the acceptance of the manuscript. Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting for publication.