Peer Review Process

The peer review process ensures that only high-quality research is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scientific publishing and is followed by all leading scholarly journals. Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering and Management (JRIEM), and all papers go through the peer review process as outlined below.

Initial Evaluation of Manuscripts

All submitted papers are read and evaluated by the editorial staff. In rare cases, exceptional papers may be accepted at this stage. Papers deemed unsuitable by the editor based on the journal’s criteria are rejected immediately without external review (although this decision may be informed by informal advice from specialists in the field). Papers are typically rejected at this stage if they lack originality, contain serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar, or fall outside the journal’s aims and scope.

Papers meeting the minimum criteria and considered potentially interesting to readers are sent for formal review by two or more reviewers if specialized advice is required (for example, on statistics or specific techniques). Editors then make a decision based on reviewers’ recommendations, choosing from the following options:

Accept: Accepted with or without minor editorial revisions.
Revision: Authors are invited to revise their paper to address specific concerns before a final decision.
Reject (with resubmission possible): Rejected but may be reconsidered if substantially revised.
Reject outright: Declined due to limited specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual contribution, or major technical and/or interpretative issues.

Type of Review Process

The Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering and Management uses a double-blind review process, in which reviewers remain anonymous, but authors’ identities are known during the process.

Reviewer Selection

Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to papers according to their expertise, and our reviewer database is regularly updated.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

Whether the paper is original.
Whether the methodology is scientifically sound.
Whether the paper adheres to appropriate ethical standards.
Whether the results are clearly presented and support the conclusions.
Whether the paper appropriately references relevant prior work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but reviewers may suggest improvements if they wish.

Review Duration

The time required for review depends on reviewers’ responsiveness. If reviewer reports conflict or are delayed, additional expert opinions may be sought. In rare cases where finding a second reviewer is difficult, or if a single reviewer’s report fully convinces the Editor, a decision to accept, reject, or request revision may be made based on that single report.

The Editor’s decision, along with reviewers’ recommendations and often word-for-word comments, will be communicated to the authors. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers, who may then request further revisions.

When reviewers agree to review a paper, it is understood as a commitment to evaluate any subsequent revisions. However, editors will not resubmit a paper to reviewers if authors have not made a genuine effort to address the critiques. Reviewer feedback is taken very seriously—particularly technical criticism.

In cases where a single reviewer objects to publication, we may consult another reviewer to assess whether overly critical standards were applied. Occasionally, additional reviewers may be invited to resolve disputes, though we prefer to do so only when specific technical issues require further advice.

Review Process Flow

Authors submit the manuscript.
Editorial evaluation (some manuscripts may be rejected or returned before peer review).
Double-blind peer review process.
Editor’s decision.
Notification to authors.

The Chief Editor of the Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering and Management has the authority to make the final decision regarding publication.

Final Report

The final decision to accept or reject a paper is sent to the authors along with reviewers’ recommendations, which may include detailed comments.

Editorial Decision

The editor’s decision is final. Reviewers may make recommendations, but the editor is responsible for the ultimate decision to accept or reject a paper. Editorial decisions are not based on a majority vote or numerical ranking. Instead, the editor evaluates the strength of arguments presented by each reviewer and the author and may consider other relevant information not available to either party.

Our primary responsibility is to our readers and the broader scientific community. In deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh each paper’s contribution accordingly.

Reviewers are encouraged to make specific recommendations but should remember that other reviewers may have different expertise or technical perspectives, and editors may have to decide based on conflicting advice. Providing a clear rationale for recommendations is the most helpful approach.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, especially when there are disagreements or when authors believe factual points have been misunderstood. However, we are mindful that reviewers may be reluctant to engage in prolonged discussions, so we aim to minimize repeated consultations while ensuring a fair hearing for authors.

Becoming a Reviewer for the Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering and Management

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for the Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering and Management, please contact the editor.

The benefits of serving as a reviewer include the opportunity to read, evaluate, and engage with cutting-edge research in industrial engineering and engineering management at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of published scientific work. You may also cite your service for the Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering and Management as part of your professional development requirements for various institutions and professional organizations.