All manuscripts submitted to Engineering Nexus undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure compliance with the journal’s ethical policies, submission standards, and formatting requirements. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the journal’s ethical rules, fall outside its scope, or fail to meet minimum scientific and technical standards may be rejected at this stage without external review. Manuscripts that are improperly prepared or incomplete may be returned to the authors for correction and resubmission.
During the preliminary evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief may consult Associate Editors to determine whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims, scope, and scientific expectations. Only submissions prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines will proceed to peer review. Submissions that lack originality, contain insufficient scientific content, are poorly presented, or do not meet the journal’s formal requirements may be declined without external assessment.
Manuscripts passing the initial checks are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate Subject Editor, who will oversee the peer-review process and evaluate the manuscript’s contribution, novelty, relevance, and presentation.
Once a manuscript is deemed suitable for review, it is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Engineering Nexus applies a single-blind peer review system, in which reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.
Reviewers may include Subject Editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, or qualified external experts. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, provided that they have not published with any of the co-authors within the past three years and have no institutional affiliation or ongoing collaboration with them.
All reviewer reports are confidential and will only be shared with the authors and editors unless explicit permission is granted by the reviewer. Authors can generally expect an editorial decision or a status update within two months of submission. If revisions are required, the corresponding author must submit the revised manuscript within four weeks. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers, particularly in cases of major revisions. The Editor will determine whether re-review is necessary based on the completeness of the authors’ responses.
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible Subject Editor based on the peer-review reports and the authors’ revisions. All manuscripts are handled in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics, and confidentiality is maintained throughout the review process.
Reject:
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in Engineering Nexus and cannot be resubmitted.
Major Revision:
The manuscript shows potential but requires substantial revisions before further consideration. Authors are invited to submit a significantly improved version addressing all concerns.
Minor Revision:
The manuscript requires moderate revisions before a final decision can be reached. Authors must revise their work according to reviewer and editor comments and provide a detailed response to each point. Additional rounds of review may be requested if needed.
Accept:
The manuscript is accepted for publication pending minor editorial adjustments. After final checks by the editorial office, the paper will be forwarded for production.
Page proofs will be sent to the corresponding author for final verification before publication. Only typographical or printer-related errors may be corrected at this stage; substantial changes to content, equations, or structure are not allowed and may incur additional charges.
Authors are expected to return corrected proofs within three days of receipt to ensure timely publication. Responsibility for the accuracy of the final published content lies with the authors; the editorial office does not assume liability for errors not corrected during the proof stage.