The Journal of Engineering Innovation and Global Impact (JEIGI) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and ethically sound research. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential to maintain fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

Step 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system or official editorial email in accordance with the journal’s author guidelines.

Step 2: Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary review to assess:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with formatting requirements
• Originality of content
• Language quality
• Completeness of submission documents
• Ethical compliance

Manuscripts failing to meet basic requirements may be returned to authors for corrections or rejected at this stage.

Step 3: Plagiarism Screening

Randomly manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software to identify:

• Plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Duplicate submissions
• Improper citations

Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels may be rejected.

Step 4: Assignment to Handling Editor

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an Editor or Associate Editor with expertise in the relevant subject area.

The editor evaluates the manuscript’s academic contribution and selects suitable peer reviewers.

Step 5: Double-Blind Peer Review

The manuscript is sent to at least two independent expert reviewers for evaluation.

Reviewers assess:

• Originality
• Methodological quality
• Technical accuracy
• Practical significance
• Literature review quality
• Ethical compliance
• Contribution to the field
• Clarity of writing

Reviewers submit detailed comments and recommendations.

Step 6: Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the editor may make one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions Required
• Reject

The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over publication decisions.

Step 7: Author Revision

If revisions are requested, authors must address reviewer comments and submit:

• Revised manuscript

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

Step 8: Final Evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation if necessary, or can be approved by the editor himself

The editor then makes the final recommendation.

Step 9: Acceptance

Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

• Copyediting
• Proofreading
• Formatting
• DOI assignment
• Final publication scheduling

Step 10: Publication

The final article is published online and made available under the journal’s Open Access policy.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process:

• Initial editorial screening: 3–7 working days
• Peer review process: 2–6 weeks
• Final decision after revisions: 1–2 weeks

Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal request to the editorial office with supporting justification.

All appeals are reviewed independently by the editorial board.