Guidelines for peer reviewers

The objectives of the peer review process of the I&I journal are to verify the quality of the research before publication, to identify errors unnoticed by the authors, and to provide feedback to the authors for the improvement of their research processes. 

As a reviewer, it is essential to maintain the confidentiality of the evaluated articles and not to share them with any third parties.  

The reviewer will consider the following evaluation criteria and the scope of the journal. 

Originality 

The topic is sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication in the journal. 

Relevance 

The subject of the article corresponds to the scope of the journal, and the topics covered are important and contribute to the development of engineering. 

Article structure 

The structure of the article complies with the article submission guidelines established by the journal, namely: it contains introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions sections. The way these texts are written is clear and effectively communicates the process and findings of the research. 

Title 

The title adequately describes the content of the article. 

Abstract 

The abstract adequately describes the content of the article and presents, in a general way, the context of the research, its development, the objective, the methodology, the main results, and the general conclusion. 

Introduction 

The introduction contains the definition of the research problem, its development, and the hypothesis. To this effect, the authors may briefly present the context of the research, the results of other works, and the challenges to be addressed. The experiments/simulations performed should also be presented in a general way. 

Methodology 

The information provided by the authors is sufficient to replicate the research, clearly explains how the data were obtained, describes the equipment and materials in an adequate and technical manner, and presents the design of experiments/simulations and the way in which the statistical analysis of the data was performed. 

Results 

The authors present their research findings clearly and in logical sequence. Their explanation is reasonable and duly supported both scientifically and technically. 

Discussion 

The authors interpret and discuss the results of their study with regard to the existing literature and the broader context of their field of research. The authors discuss how their study contributes to the field of research and the possible theoretical, practical, or public policy implications of their findings. The limitations of the study are discussed, and possible sources of bias and error are mentioned. 

Conclusions 

The conclusions agree with the results and their analysis, and they are consistent with the objective of the research and the proposed hypotheses. The main points of the discussion are included. 

Language 

The authors make appropriate use of language to communicate the information contained in the article. 

Tables and figures 

The tables and figures are of high graphic quality, necessary, and duly used in the text. 

References  

The sources are relevant and current, and they are adequately cited and referenced within the text and at the end of the article. 

     

Considering the evaluation criteria and the scope of the journal, the reviewer will report the result according to the following options: 

  1. Submission accepted: This option is selected if it is recommended that the submission be accepted as is. 
  2. Revisions required: This option is selected when the articles need small modifications. 
  3. Resubmit for review: This option is selected when the article needs substantial modifications and must undergo a second round of peer review. 
  4. Resubmit elsewhere: This option is selected when the article is declined for publication in I&I, and it is recommended that it be submitted to another journal. 
  5. Submission declined: This option is selected when the article is declined for publication in I&I. 
  6. See comments: This option is selected if the reviewer does not agree with any of the previous options.