Reviewers
Prior to publication, articles submitted to Thermal Engineering are subject to peer review and approval by the Editorial Board.
Reviewing is a significant and integral part of the preparation and publication of scientific articles. The expert evaluation of the manuscript quality is a very important stage and the Editorial Board of the journal relies in this regard on the assistance of eminent scientists and specialists, ensuring at the same time their adherence to the principles of fairness, integrity, and objectivity.
The reviews should contribute to the rigorous selection of manuscripts and improve the presentation of research findings and methods.
Every submitted manuscript is usually sent to two reviewers.
Reviewers of articles should comply with the following requirements.
1. Nothing should undermine the reviewer's objective assessment of the manuscript (there must be no "conflict of interest"). There shall be no family or employment relationship between the reviewer and the author (or one of the authors), they shall not be employed (including part-time employment) by the same organization, shall not be in any prior or current collaboration with any of the authors of the manuscript, etc. In all these cases, the reviewer shall disclose the information about the existing conflict of interests to the Editorial Board.
2. If the reviewer deems the article sent for review does not match his area of expertise he is requested to inform the Editorial Board about this fact within 3 days after receiving the manuscript. If the reviewer can recommend another reviewer, he is asked to send the relevant information about the potential reviewer to the Editorial Board.
3. The experts are allowed two weeks for the initial review.
4. Reviews in the Thermal Engineering are anonymous for the authors (one-sided "blind"). If the reviewers submit to the Editorial Board a signed pdf file they are asked to send also a doc-file.
5.The review should consider the following:
whether the articles fits within the aims and scope of the journal;
whether the problems considered in the article are topical;
whether the reviewed article is of interest for the target reader's community;
whether the submitted manuscript adheres to the Instructions to the Authors and journal requirements.
6. If the submitted manuscript meets the above-listed requirements but there are some comments and recommendations, the Editorial Board asks the reviewer to list them point by point.
7. The review should be completed with a clearly expressed opinion, for example:
the paper is recommended for publication in its current form;
the paper is recommended for publication after a slight revision (major revision);
the paper is not suitable for publication [should be rejected];
for a more objective review the paper should be sent to other reviewers (a candidature can be recommended if possible).
8. In the end, the review should be dated and signed by the reviewer giving his full name and signature.
After all reviews have been received, the Editorial Board sends them to the authors. If the paper requires revision, a letter is sent to the author with a request to respond to the comments of the reviewers item by item and to highlight all changes in the text by color.
On receiving contradicting reviews, the Editorial Board conducts additional study of the paper (see "Publication Ethics”).
After the reception of the revised version of the paper, the Editorial Board resubmits it to the reviewer with a written request either for the second review or for the opinion about the publication of the paper.
If the reviewer is not satisfied with the author's amendments to the paper and his answers, he writes the second review, and the paper is returned to the authors for the second revision. This stage can be repeated several times.
After the reception of positive opinions from all reviewers, the paper is discussed at the Editorial Board meeting where decision is made about the publication of the paper in the journal.
The reviewing and acceptance procedure takes from one to two months, after which the papers are published in the order of precedence. The Editorial Board may decide on an extraordinary publication.
|
