Qubahan Engineering Journal (QENGJ) applies a double-anonymous peer-review process to scholarly manuscripts unless a specific article category is explicitly subject to a different editorial procedure.

Under double-anonymous review:

• Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors; and

• Author identities are withheld from reviewers through the normal peer-review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission is initially evaluated by the Editorial Office and the responsible editor.

The initial screening considers:

• Compliance with the journal's Aims and Scope;

• Originality;

• Scholarly relevance;

• Methodological quality;

• Technical quality;

• Ethical compliance;

• Completeness of required declarations;

• Research-integrity concerns;

• Presentation quality; and

• Overall suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that clearly fail to satisfy journal requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Similarity and Integrity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software and other editorial integrity checks.

A similarity score alone does not determine plagiarism.

Potential overlap is evaluated in context by the editorial team.

Where necessary, authors may be asked to provide clarification, original data, source files, or other relevant information.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts approved for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewer selection considers:

• Subject expertise;

• Research experience;

• Independence;

• Absence of conflicts of interest;

• Availability; and

• Ability to provide a rigorous scholarly review.

The journal may invite an additional reviewer where specialist expertise is required or where reviewer reports substantially disagree.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate matters including:

• Originality;

• Scientific or scholarly importance;

• Methodological rigor;

• Technical correctness;

• Quality of data or evidence;

• Clarity of results;

• Interpretation of findings;

• Validity of conclusions;

• Relevance of references;

• Ethical compliance; and

• Overall contribution to the field.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final editorial decision is not determined by numerical voting or by any single reviewer.

6. Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewer reports and may issue an editorial decision.

The editor may also request further review where additional expertise or clarification is required.

7. Revision

Where revision is invited, authors should submit:

• A revised manuscript;

• A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers;

• A response to editorial comments; and

• A clear explanation where a recommendation has not been followed.

Authors should address reviewer comments professionally and substantively.

8. Further Review

Revised manuscripts may be:

• Evaluated directly by the handling editor;

• Returned to the original reviewers; or

• Sent to additional reviewers.

The appropriate procedure depends on the extent and significance of the revisions.

9. Final Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

The decision is based on:

• Scholarly quality;

• Reviewer reports;

• Author responses;

• Methodological soundness;

• Ethical compliance;

• Research integrity;

• Relevance to the journal; and

• Overall contribution to knowledge.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where a conflict exists, the individual must withdraw from the editorial or review process.

An independent editor or reviewer will be appointed.

11. Editor or Board-Member Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by editors or Editorial Board members are handled independently.

The author-editor must not:

• Select reviewers;

• Participate in reviewer communication;

• Access confidential reviewer information beyond that provided to ordinary authors; or

• Participate in the editorial decision.

12. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, and other confidential information must be protected.

Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished material for personal, academic, financial, or professional advantage.

13. Editorial Independence

The peer-review and editorial process remains independent of financial considerations.

The Article Processing Charge of US$750 becomes relevant only after final acceptance.

Payment, waiver, discount, sponsorship, institutional affiliation, or commercial relationship must not influence peer review or editorial decisions.

14. No Guaranteed Acceptance

Submission to QENGJ does not guarantee publication.

The journal does not offer guaranteed acceptance, paid acceptance, or acceptance without appropriate editorial assessment.