The Global Journal of Engineering and Technology (GJET) relies on the expertise and dedication of its reviewers to maintain the quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, and reviewers play an essential role in helping authors refine their work while guiding editors in making fair and balanced decisions.

This page provides clear guidance for reviewers invited to assess manuscripts for GJET.

1. Role of Reviewers

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and in a timely manner.
• Provide constructive and detailed feedback that helps authors improve their work.
• Assist the editorial team in determining whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
• Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content and the peer review process.

2. Ethical Responsibilities

• Confidentiality: Do not share, discuss, or use manuscript content for personal advantage.
• Conflict of Interest: Immediately inform the editor if there is a potential conflict (e.g., collaboration, competition, or personal relationship with the authors).
• Objectivity: Ensure comments are based on scientific merit rather than personal opinion, bias, or unrelated factors.
• Originality & Misconduct: Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or ethical violations to the editorial office.

3. Review Criteria

When reviewing, consider the following aspects:

1. Relevance & Contribution
   • Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of GJET?
   • Does it make a significant contribution to engineering and technology research or practice?
2. Scientific Quality
   • Are the objectives clear and justified?
   • Is the methodology sound and appropriate?
   • Are results presented clearly and supported by evidence?
   • Are conclusions valid and consistent with the findings?
3. Structure & Presentation
   • Is the manuscript well organized and logically written?
   • Is the abstract concise and informative?
   • Are figures, tables, and references relevant and of good quality?
4. Language & Clarity
   • Is the writing clear and understandable?
   • Are technical terms and abbreviations properly defined?

4. Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers should provide a recommendation, typically choosing one of the following:

• Accept without revisions
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required (re-review suggested)
• Reject (not suitable for publication in GJET)

5. Preparing the Review Report

A reviewer’s report should include:

• Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript, highlighting its strengths.
• Major Comments: Substantive issues that must be addressed before publication (e.g., flaws in design, insufficient analysis, unclear results).
• Minor Comments: Suggestions for improvements in clarity, language, formatting, or presentation.
• Recommendation: Final decision advice for the editor.

Note: Comments to the author should be constructive and professional, while confidential comments to the editor may include sensitive insights about suitability or ethical concerns.

6. Timeliness

• Reviews should be completed within the timeline specified in the invitation (usually 2–3 weeks).
• If more time is needed, or if you are unable to review, please notify the editorial office promptly.

7. Recognition and Acknowledgment

• Reviewers are acknowledged annually for their valuable contributions to the journal.
• Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board of GJET.
• Reviewers may request formal certificates for their service.

8. Contact Information

For questions, clarifications, or assistance with the review process, please contact: editor.gjet@sciconxjournals.com