Peer Review Process
This journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that the paper's reviewers won’t get to know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) won’t get to know the reviewer's identity. The idea is that everyone should get a similar and unbiased review. The peer review process will take a time approximately 6 months.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
If C.E.J’s Editor has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following items:
- Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their research;
- Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
- Providing all required information wit hin established deadlines;
- Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal;
- Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest concerning the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
- Reporting possible research misconducts;
- Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons;
- Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
- Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
- Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors;
- Not identifying themselves to authors;
- Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer;
- Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original research;
- Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge;
- Writing a review report in English only;
- Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.
What should be checked while reviewing a manuscript?
- Novelty;
- Originality;
- Scientific reliability;
- A valuable contribution to science;
- Adding new aspects to the existing field of study;
- Ethical aspects;
- Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines;
- References provided to substantiate the content;
- Grammar, punctuation, and spelling;
- Scientific misconduct.
Peer Review Process
The process can be described as follow.
1. An editor first reviews the submitted manuscript. It will be evaluated whether it is suitable for the Journal of Robotics and Control focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using Turnitin. The decision is rejected or accepted for a review process.
2. The manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers (Double Blind Review). Reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses.
3. Afterward, the editorial team meeting suggested the authors' final decision on the revised manuscript.
4. Finally, the Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.
5. The accepted manuscript continued with copyediting and layout editing to prepare the camera-ready paper.
Review Outcomes
The Editor will make a final publication decision using feedback from the peer review process. Decisions categories include:
- Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version to JRC.
- Major Revision - The manuscript will be reviewed again after some major modifications are made.
- Minor Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in JRC if minor modifications are made. An editor will review revisions to ensure necessary updates are made before publication.
- Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form without further modifications.
The detailed Journal peer review process is based on the following chart:
