JYEM finds it important to share how our journal operates in the interest of our contributors. Firstly, the submissions are reviewed by an editorial board to determine whether it suits the philosophy of JYEM. The initial round of papers are then further reviewed for their level of sophistication and content; this phase of submission review ensures that papers are evaluated fairly and equally. To ensure academic integrity, the papers are cross-examined for plagiarism as JYEM does not accept papers duplicated from other existing works. Plagiarism is met with penalties which may include getting in contact with employers.
Following the first two stages is another round of editorial review. Either the managing editor co-editors reviews each submission. For issues that are based on invitation only, submissions from those not invited will be considered as a regular submission by the editorial board. Peer reviewers will ensure that they answer the following questions in their report:
Managing editors ensure that papers in JYEM maintain our standard; therefore our team uses discretion in rejecting submissions that do not meet our expectations. To proceed from the final round of review, all editors must vote unanimously on the submission. If conflict occurs, a third reviewer considers the submission. Submission authors reserve the right to withdraw at any time.
The Peer Review Philosophy
The process of an author’s work from submission to publishing is infamously lengthy. JYEM strives to process and review papers not only fairly but also efficiently. Our peer reviewers are required to submit comments within 7 business days.
Every single manuscript JYEM receives is subject to single blind peer review. Our philosophy on paper writing values anonymous peer review for an academic environment based on honesty. Peer reviewers at JYEM are not allowed to contact authors directly. All reviewers consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before taking on the responsibility of reviewing a manuscript via the peer review process.
Peer reviewers provide the Editor-in-Chief with a recommendation regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Reviewers grade the manuscripts and gives a score from 1to 6detailing the quality of the manuscript.
The table below provides the scoring system and gives the definition of each number.
|8-10||Excellent||Accept after discretionary revisions.|
|5-7||Good||Several minor revisions needed.|
|4-5||Fair||One major revision and several minor revisions needed.|
|3-4||Poor||Some major revisions needed with multiple minor revisions required.|
|2-3||Very poor||Major revisions needed to improve scientific validity and/or clarity.|
|1||Flawed||The manuscript has major flaws that cannot be improved with revisions.|
|(Rejection without option to resubmit recommended.)|