Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scholarly quality, credibility, and integrity of Qubahan Engineering Journal (QENGJ).

Reviews should be independent, evidence-based, constructive, confidential, respectful, and focused on improving the quality of scholarly work.

Before Accepting a Review

A reviewer should accept a review invitation only when:

• The manuscript falls within the reviewer's area of expertise;

• The reviewer can provide an objective assessment;

• No significant conflict of interest exists;

• The reviewer can complete the assessment within the requested period; and

• The reviewer is able to comply with the journal's confidentiality requirements.

Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed immediately to the handling editor.

Confidentiality

The manuscript and all associated materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;

• Disclose unpublished findings;

• Use manuscript content for personal advantage;

• Contact the authors directly about the manuscript;

• Distribute review materials outside the journal system; or

• Upload confidential manuscript material to publicly accessible generative-AI systems.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript using the following considerations.

1. Relevance

Reviewers should consider:

• Whether the manuscript fits the journal's Aims and Scope;

• Whether the research question is important;

• Whether the work contributes meaningfully to the relevant field.

2. Originality

Reviewers should assess:

• Whether the manuscript presents sufficiently original work;

• Whether the novelty is clearly demonstrated;

• Whether the contribution is distinguishable from previously published research.

3. Methodology

Reviewers should consider:

• Whether the research design is appropriate;

• Whether methods are described clearly;

• Whether experimental or computational procedures are suitable;

• Whether datasets are appropriate;

• Whether statistical methods are appropriate;

• Whether models and simulations are adequately validated;

• Whether assumptions and limitations are clearly stated; and

• Whether the work can reasonably be reproduced.

4. Engineering and Technical Quality

For engineering and technical manuscripts, reviewers should consider:

• Correctness of calculations;

• Appropriateness of equations;

• Structural or computational assumptions;

• Experimental setup;

• Model validation;

• Boundary conditions;

• Engineering standards where applicable;

• Reliability of numerical simulations;

• Performance measures; and

• Technical interpretation of results.

5. Architecture and Built Environment Research

Where relevant, reviewers should consider:

• Research or design methodology;

• Contextual justification;

• Environmental performance;

• Sustainability;

• Functional analysis;

• Cultural or heritage considerations;

• Technical feasibility;

• Evidence supporting design conclusions; and

• Relevance to architecture and the built environment.

6. Results

Reviewers should assess whether:

• Results are clearly presented;

• Results correspond to the stated methodology;

• Tables and figures are accurate and informative;

• Statistical or computational analyses are appropriate;

• Findings are not overstated; and

• Unexpected findings are adequately discussed.

7. Discussion

The discussion should:

• Interpret rather than merely repeat results;

• Relate findings to existing literature;

• Explain the significance of the results;

• Address limitations;

• Avoid unsupported claims; and

• Identify relevant implications.

8. Conclusion

Reviewers should assess whether:

• Conclusions are supported by the results;

• Conclusions address the stated objectives;

• Claims are proportional to the evidence; and

• Limitations are appropriately acknowledged.

9. Literature and References

Reviewers should consider:

• Whether relevant literature is represented fairly;

• Whether references are sufficiently current where appropriate;

• Whether citations support the statements for which they are used; and

• Whether obvious citation manipulation is present.

Reviewers must not request citation of their own work unless the suggested reference is genuinely relevant and necessary.

10. Research Integrity

Reviewers should confidentially alert the editor where they reasonably suspect:

• Plagiarism;

• Duplicate publication;

• Data fabrication;

• Data falsification;

• Image manipulation;

• Citation manipulation;

• Authorship concerns;

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• Ethical violations; or

• Other serious publication-integrity problems.

Reviewers should not independently conduct investigations or publicly accuse authors.

Structure of the Review Report

A constructive report should normally include:

Overall Assessment

A concise evaluation of the manuscript's contribution and principal strengths or weaknesses.

Major Comments

Issues that materially affect:

• Methodology;

• Interpretation;

• Scientific validity;

• Technical correctness;

• Reproducibility;

• Ethical compliance; or

• Conclusions.

Minor Comments

Issues relating to:

• Presentation;

• Terminology;

• Figures;

• Tables;

• References;

• Organization; or

• Minor clarification.

Recommendation

The reviewer may recommend:

• Accept;

• Minor Revision;

• Major Revision; or

• Reject.

The recommendation should be supported by the content of the review.

Professional Conduct

Review comments must address the manuscript rather than the authors.

Reviewers must avoid:

• Insulting language;

• Personal criticism;

• Discriminatory statements;

• Threats;

• Hostile comments; and

• Unsubstantiated allegations.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

A reviewer should normally decline a review where there is a significant relationship with the authors, institution, research project, funding source, or subject matter that could compromise impartiality.

Where uncertainty exists, the reviewer should disclose the situation to the editor.

Generative Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content and quality of their reviews.

Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative-AI services.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment.

Timeliness

Reviewers who cannot complete a review within the requested period should inform the Editorial Office promptly.

If additional time is required, the reviewer should request an extension rather than submit an incomplete or rushed review.