Submissions must represent the original and independent work of the authors. The covering letter should explain why the work is novel, topical, exciting and of broad international interest, and how the results are applied.
Each new submission is assessed by one or more editors to determine whether it falls within the general remit of IJEMA. We will reject a manuscript without review if it contains insufficient engineering science; is unlikely to be of interest to a broad international audience because its scope is very narrow without providing novel insights or sufficient advance into the subject area; there are substantive issues with the design, methodology, or data quality; it exceeds our word limit or is incorrectly formatted; it is poorly presented and unclear.
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to a subject expert in our team of Associate Editors to oversee the review process. Authors are asked to provide the names and emails of at least 5 potential referees working outside their home institution(s) and qualified to provide an independent assessment of the work. Authors may also identify referees they would prefer not to review the manuscript. These suggestions will be used as a guide although Editors are not obliged to follow them.
All types of papers are subject to peer review and authors can expect a decision, or an explanation for the delay, within 3 months of receipt. If a revision is invited, the corresponding author should submit the revised manuscript within 3 weeks. Otherwise, revisions may be treated as new submissions and sent for further evaluation by new referees unless an extension to the revision period has been agreed with the editor.
Types of decisions
Immediate Reject after pre-review screening
After submission, all papers undergo a pre-review assessment by members of the editorial team based on the following criteria:
1. Does the paper fall within the broad remit of IJEMA?
2. Does the paper contain sufficient engineering science?
3. Is the scope of the paper broad rather than narrow with the potential to make a substantial advance in the development of Engineering, and/or does it provide novel methodological insight?
4. Is the subject area covered by the paper topical and novel, and hence potentially of interest to a wide readership?
5. Are the design, methodology, data quality and analysis of a standard appropriate for peer review by the Journal?
6. Does the paper conform to Journal standards with respect to length, format and language?
If a paper is not rejected at the pre-review stage it goes forward for peer-review. Typically, each paper is reviewed by two independent referees and an assessment is made by one of the Journal’s associate editors. The final decision is taken by one of the senior editors based on the information gained through the peer review process.
Following peer review, the paper is judged not to be acceptable for publication in IJEMA and resubmission is not possible.
The submitted version of the paper is not acceptable and requires major revision but there is clear potential in the work and the Journal is prepared to consider a new version. Authors are offered the opportunity to resubmit their paper as a new submission. Concerns will remain regarding the suitability of the paper for publication until the editors are convinced by the authors that their paper fits the scope and standards of the Journal. The resubmitted manuscript will be returned to the original associate editor if at all possible. Resubmissions should be returned within 4 months of receiving our decision letter.
The paper requires changes before a final decision can be made. Authors are asked to modify their manuscript in light of comments received from referees and editors, and to submit a new version for consideration within 3 weeks of receiving the decision letter. A point-by-point explanation of how comments have been addressed must be supplied with the revised version of the paper. Revisions may undergo further peer review and papers may undergo more than one round of revision. If the authors do not revise their papers to the satisfaction of the editors, the paper can still be declined from publication in the Journal.
The paper is acceptable for publication, subject to conditions that need to be addressed in producing a final version of the manuscript. These may include sub-editing changes and minor amendment to ensure the paper fully matches our criteria. At this stage we will request an exclusive license to publish, supplementary material, color artwork, and a lay summary for promotional purposes.
After final checking in the editorial office, acceptance is confirmed and the paper is forwarded to the publishers for publication. Authors can track their papers through the different stages of final production via the publisher’s author services.
If the authors of a paper disagree with some aspect of the assessment of their manuscript, they should write to the Assistant Editor outlining their reasons for appealing the editors' decision. The editorial team will consider the appeal, reply to the authors and take any appropriate action. Note, however, that each submission is considered very carefully at the first assessment and decisions to reject a manuscript are not taken lightly.
Original articles should not exceed 7000 words inclusive of all parts of the paper apart from online Supporting Information. Typescripts should be arranged as follows, with each section starting on a separate page.
This should contain:
- A concise and informative title.
- A list of author names, affiliation(s), and e-mail addresses.
- The name, complete mailing address (including e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers) of the corresponding author.
- A running title not exceeding 45 characters.
- A word count of the entire paper broken down into summary, main text, acknowledgements, references, tables and figure legends.
- The number of tables and figures.
- The number of references.
This is called the Abstract on the web submission site. The Summary should outline the purpose of the paper and the main results, conclusions and recommendations, using clear, factual, numbered statements. Authors should follow a formula in which point 1 sets the context and need for the work; point 2 indicates the approach and methods used; the next 2-3 points outline the main results; and the last point identifies the wider implications and relevance to management or policy. The final summary point is the most important of all in maximizing the impact of the paper. It should synthesize the paper's key messages and should be generic, seminal and accessible to non-specialists
A list in alphabetical order not exceeding ten words or short phrases, excluding words used in the title and chosen carefully to reflect the precise content of the paper.
State the reason for the work, the context, background, aims and the hypotheses being tested. End the Introduction with a brief statement of what has been achieved.
Materials and methods
Include sufficient details for the work to be repeated. Where specific equipment and materials are named, the manufacturer’s details (name, city and country) should be given so that readers can trace specifications by contacting the manufacturer. Where commercially available software has been used, details of the supplier should be given in brackets or the reference given in full in the reference list.
State the results of experimental or modeling work, drawing attention to important details in tables and figures. The Results section should conform to the highest standards of rigour.
Point out the importance of the results and place them in the context of previous studies and in relation to the application of the work (expanding on the Synthesis and applications section of the Summary). Include clear recommendations for management or policy.
Be brief. If authors refer to themselves as recipients of assistance or funding, they should do so by their initials separated by points (e.g. J.B.T.). Do not acknowledge Editors by name.
To enable readers to locate archived data from papers, we require that authors list the database and the respective accession numbers or DOIs for all data from the manuscript that has been made publicly available. An example of what this section should look like can be found in the Data Archiving Q&A.
Citation to work by four or more authors should be abbreviated with the use of et al. (e.g. Manel et al. 1999). Citation to work by one, two or three authors should always give the author names in full. Work with the same first author and date should be coded by letters, e.g. Thompson et al. 1991a,b. Citations should be listed in chronological order in the text and be separated by a semi-colon, e.g. Balmford& Gaston 1999; Royle et al. 2007. The references in the Reference list should be in alphabetical order with the journal name unabbreviated. The format for papers, theses, entire books and chapters in books is as follows: