The peer-review process mainly follows three steps, starting as the manuscript is submitted by the author to ET journal:

Step 1:

As soon as the manuscript is received by the journal editorial office it will be checked and assessed by the journal editorial office and the editor. The initial desk assessment including:

  • The iThenticate service to check for plagiarism.
  • Does the manuscript cover a suitable topic and fit the aims and scope of the Journal?
  • Does the manuscript meet the basic requirements of the journal's guidelines and follow the instructions for authors such as word count, clarity of the English language, and format?
  • Does it make a significant contribution to the existing literature?
  • They will check that there is an abstract with suitable word count, affiliation details of the author, Figures, Tables, and their citation in the text of the manuscript. The author's contributions, declaration of competing interest, funding, and Data availability statement will be also checked.
  • Manuscript commitment to high-quality research and ethical standards.
  • Standards of reliability to qualify for further review.

If the submitted manuscript does not pass the initial checklist, the editor might reject the manuscript. If the manuscript does pass the initial checklist it will transfer to the second step (i.e., peer review).

 Step 2:

The editor will select and contact at least two reviewers who are experts in the field of the manuscript and ask them to review the manuscript. The reviewers will be asked to advise the editor whether the manuscript is suitable for publication in ETJ according to the following observations:

  • The manuscript of the author fits the scope of the ETJ.
  • The novelty or originality of the study.
  • The suitable description of the study design and methodology.
  • The experimental and theoretical sections and the results and discussion are appropriately and clearly presented.
  • The conclusions of the manuscript are trustworthy, significant, and supported by the research work.

Once the editor has received the reviewer's reports, he will inform the author(s). The final decision and share with the author the reviewer report along with any additional guidance from the editor. The final decision of the editor should be one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject
  • Others

Very often frequently, the author(s) will need to revise their manuscript and resubmit the revised version of the manuscript with the response to the reviewers’ comments. Or it may be that the editor decides that the manuscript needs to be rejected by ETJ.

Step 3:

If the editor and reviewers have recommended minor revision of the manuscript or major revision (if the manuscript requires more substantial changes), the author has time to amend their manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers. Then the author should resubmit the revised manuscript with the response to the reviewers’ comments as a separate file. Once the author resubmits the manuscript the editor will review the revised version and he will send it for the second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to check the adequate response to their comments.

Finally, if the revisions have now brought the manuscript up to the requirement of ET journal, then it will be transferred to production.