Peer Review Process

Editorial Process

Envirotek journal is committed to editorial independence, and strive in all cases to prevent this principle from being compromised through conflicts of interest, fear, or any other corporate, business, financial or political influence. We do not discriminate against authors, editors or peer reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity. During the editorial process,

  • Each paper submitted to our journals is initially evaluated by an editor covering the subject area, who will decide whether to send it for peer review in consultation with experts in relevant fields. If the paper is suitable for consideration by the Envirotek journal, the editor who has been assigned the paper will select a minimum of two peer reviewers for the paper, after consulting the editors who have lately handled papers in relevant fields. The editor must guarantee the selection of peer reviewers who are most qualified and best able to provide a critical, expert, and unbiased evaluation of the paper.
  • Editorial decisions on each paper are made by the editor who has been assigned the paper based on the comments of the peer reviewers. Possible decisions include accept, minor revision, major revision, and rejection. The decisions are made solely based on the scientific merits of the content of the paper, regardless of the author’s gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or their ethnic or geographic origin.
  • The editor who has been assigned the paper not divulge any information relating to the paper to any other person beyond the authors and reviewers. He/she is also ultimately in charge of ensuring the timely completion of the peer review and publication/rejection of the paper. The editorial board of the journal are committed to the confidentiality of papers, authors, and reviewers, ensuring the necessary anonymity in the publishing process.


Peer Review 

Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publication. Peer-reviewed articles are building blocks of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For each paper entering the peer review process, at least two peer reviewers are selected, who must be independent from the authors and their institutions, able to evaluate the technical aspects of the paper, and available to evaluate the paper within the required period. The peer reviewers selected are expected to:

  • Furnish an objective and detailed evaluation of the paper, and contribute to the decision-making process;
  • Keep any information provided by the editor who has been assigned the paper confidential, without copying or keeping the manuscript;
  • Alert the editor who has been assigned the paper any content that has been published and that is highly similar to the paper being reviewed;
  • Notify the editor who has been assigned the paper any potential conflict of interest;
  • Reason his/her evaluations, and submit a complete, detailed report to the editor who has been assigned the paper; and
  • Commit to evaluating the paper as quickly as possible to meet the deadlines, and advise the editor who has been assigned the paper immediately about the risk of failing to finish the evaluation within the required period.

Confidentiality is of paramount importance to the peer review process. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, he/she must consult with the editor and provide the names of any such colleagues to the journal with the final report.

Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, reviewers’ comments and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed, or otherwise publicised without prior written consent. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality.