Reviewer Management

Overview

At TLJET, an efficient and ethical reviewer management system is central to upholding our commitment to publishing rigorous, original, and impactful engineering and technology research. The peer review process is driven by objectivity, technical accuracy, and fairness, supported by a robust and diverse reviewer network.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

Subject Expertise

Reviewers are selected based on demonstrated expertise in disciplines including:

  • Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Software, and Industrial Engineering

  • Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, IoT, Blockchain, Data Science, and Applied Mathematics

Selection Criteria Include:

  • Relevant academic degrees (PhD/MS preferred)

  • Publication history in peer-reviewed technical journals

  • Familiarity with analytical, simulation, or experimental methodologies

Diversity and Representation

TLJET is committed to building a reviewer pool that is:

  • Geographically and institutionally diverse

  • Inclusive across gender, career stages, and research domains

Invitation to Review

Reviewers receive an email invitation with:

  • Manuscript title and abstract

  • Response deadline (typically 2–4 weeks)

  • Conflict of interest declaration

Reviewers may accept or decline based on expertise and availability.

Reviewer Database

The editorial office maintains and regularly updates a dynamic reviewer database. Sources include:

  • Recommendations from editorial board and authors

  • Conferences and academic networks

  • Recent contributors to TLJET or other indexed journals

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

Double-Blind Review

TLJET follows a double-blind peer review process:

  • Authors and reviewers remain anonymous

  • Promotes fairness and impartiality

Workload Distribution

The editorial team ensures balanced distribution to prevent reviewer fatigue and promote quality feedback.

Mentorship-Oriented Selection

We actively involve:

  • Senior experts for in-depth technical assessments

  • Early-career researchers for capacity building, guided by editorial oversight

3. Reviewer Expectations and Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess:

  • Originality and novelty of research

  • Technical soundness of models, algorithms, simulations, or experiments

  • Quality of data interpretation, coding practices, and result presentation

  • Relevance to TLJET’s scope and potential real-world applications

  • Ethical compliance and adherence to reporting standards (e.g., IEEE, ACM, PRISMA-ScR)

Timeliness

Reviews should be returned within the assigned period (typically 2–4 weeks). Delays may lead to reassignment.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must not:

  • Share or distribute manuscript content

  • Use unpublished data for personal or academic gain

  • Discuss manuscript details with third parties

Ethical Responsibility

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Flag suspected plagiarism or data fabrication

  • Report inappropriate citations or self-citations

  • Declare all conflicts of interest

4. Communication and Support

Editorial Support

Editors are available to:

  • Clarify review expectations

  • Assist with technical or system-related queries

  • Address reviewer recommendations or concerns

Recognition

TLJET acknowledges reviewer contributions through:

  • Annual online recognition (with consent)

  • Reviewer certificates (upon request)

  • Editorial board nomination for top contributors

5. Quality Assurance in Peer Review

Performance Monitoring

Reviews are assessed for:

  • Constructiveness and objectivity

  • Depth of analysis

  • Timeliness and responsiveness

Repeated poor-quality reviews may result in removal from the database.

Managing Conflicting Reviews

In cases of diverging opinions:

  • A third reviewer may be appointed

  • Editors synthesize feedback and make the final decision

Periodic Evaluation

Reviewer performance is reviewed periodically. High-performing reviewers are prioritized and may be considered for editorial roles.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

Skill Building

TLJET supports professional growth through:

  • Webinars on peer review and ethics

  • Workshops or materials on research integrity

  • Mentorship for junior reviewers

Incentives (Under Consideration)

  • Discounts on APCs for reviewer-authored papers

  • Priority handling of manuscripts submitted by active reviewers

  • Access to TLJET partner content or databases

7. Managing Conflicts and Misconduct

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any financial, personal, or professional conflicts related to:

  • The authors or their institutions

  • Competing research or intellectual property

Alternative reviewers are assigned immediately upon conflict identification.

Reviewer Misconduct

Examples of misconduct include:

  • Using manuscript content without permission

  • Bias, harassment, or inappropriate language in reviews

  • Failing to disclose conflicts of interest

Violations may lead to:

  • Immediate removal from the reviewer pool

  • Notification to affiliated institutions

  • Reporting to COPE, if necessary

Conclusion

TLJET’s reviewer management policy emphasizes professionalism, diversity, transparency, and scholarly excellence. By supporting reviewers and upholding high standards, we ensure that each publication represents the best of engineering and technology research.