Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The aims of “Engineering Research” are to establish a growing and respected vehicle for the rapid and efficient dissemination of new technologies in the Sciences of Engineering.

The scope is to promote a quick way of informing, in a very simple format, the engineering society about what people have done, planned and suggested about the future of Engineering, in all fields.

For new submission, click here.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The practice of peer review is to ensure that good and original science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Engineering Research, and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Selection of Handling Editor
The Editor-in-Chief assigns a handling Editor for a submitted manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief also serves as a handling Editor. Authors may request a specific handling Editor as part of the submission process, though the journal office prioritizes expertise, workload, and conflict of interest when taking these requests into account.

Initial manuscript evaluation
The handling Editor first evaluates a manuscript to determine if it merits full external review. The handling Editor may consult other Editors or members of the Editorial Advisory Board for an initial opinion. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt. The most common grounds for editorial rejection at this point are that a paper is: outside the aims and scope of the journal; a confirmation or duplication of published work in this or another species or system, or represents preliminary, incomplete, poorly designed, or purely descriptive studies lacking mechanistic insight into a problem.

To assist authors in preparing a manuscript and considering where submission to the journal is appropriate, the journal will provide regular updates and information on author guidelines and journal policies with respect to scientific content. The handling Editor co-ordinates assignment of reviewers and the review process for papers deemed suitable for full external review. In general up to three reviewers in the field will provide opinions. .

Manuscripts solicited for Special Issues and other invited material are subject to essentially the same peer review procedures as regular submissions except that, in most cases, Special Issues are handled by a Guest Editor.

Type of Peer Review
This journal employs blind review, whereby the referees remain anonymous throughout the process.

Engineering Research Editors follow a strict conflict of interest policy and do not handle papers submitted from their own or affiliated institutions, from current collaborators or lab members or from previous collaborators or lab members with whom they have published in the past 3 years. Editors may handle manuscripts from another campus of their university system (for example the University of Sao Paulo system, as long as the other conflict of interest requirements are upheld.

How the referee is selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. We seek to assign referees who are scholarly, balanced and timely in submitting evaluations. Reviewers are invited by email and asked to accept or decline if they are able to provide a review within 10-14 days. If they decline new potential reviewers are invited. All invited reviewers are provided an opportunity to make suggestions for alternative reviewers. Our database of reviewers is constantly being updated as we attempt to identify and maintain quality reviewers. We request suggestions for referees from the author to aid in identifying people with relevant expertise. The handling Editor is free to select from these choices or pick other reviewer candidates. We also request authors to make suggestions of referees to exclude from the review process to help in avoiding conflict of interest. In rare cases when an appropriate second reviewer cannot be found in a timely manner, an Editor may him/herself act as a second reviewer. The Editor may also act as a third reviewer in cases of conflicting opinion.

Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original, high quality, novel, provides mechanistic insight, follows scientific guidelines of the journal
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Has substantive results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines

Referees are not expected to correct or copy-edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. If a paper is judged to be scientifically sound but inadequately presented, it may be accepted subject to the contributor agreeing to have the paper professionally copy-edited at his/her expense. Engineering Research maintains a list of well qualified providers of this service.

How long does the review process take?

Typically the time for handling a manuscript from submission to first decision is less than 5 weeks. We strive to be as fast as possible, however it can take time to identify and receive acceptance of sufficient reviewers to evaluate a paper, especially during summer months and holiday periods. If reviewers agree to handle a manuscript in a timely manner but are delayed or fail to provide a review despite regular reminders from the journal a handling Editor may make a decision based on the completed reviews or a further opinion may be sought. Should the referees' reports contradict one another it may also be necessary to seek a further expert opinion. In such cases, the review process will take longer but the journal makes every effort to minimize delay. All our referees sign a conflict of interest statement.
At the discretion of the handling Editor, revised manuscripts are returned, usually within 1 week of receipt, to the initial referees for evaluation. If the original reviewers of the manuscript are not willing to provide an opinion on the revised submission, alternative reviewers may be sought. In general one round of re-review is permitted for manuscripts deemed to have major issues. Subsequent rounds of review are usually considered only to correct relatively minor issues that the handling Editor feels can be quickly resolved.

Final Decision
Referees advise the handling Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The handling Editor's decision is final.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.


Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia