Review process

A full description of the peer review process

Double-blind peer review

- Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the manuscript or in any Supplementary Information files (or in any file names).

- Do not include an Acknowledgments section containing author names in the manuscript on submission. The information can be added to the manuscript after completion of the peer review process.

- Do not include work in the reference list that has not yet been accepted for publication.

- Do not sign rebuttals at revision stage with author names, nor appeals.

Each article has been reviewed by 2 experts in the closest field

Peer review process:

Upon receiving a new manuscript, the Editorial office conducts initial pre-refereeing checks to ensure the article is legible, complete, correctly formatted, original, within the scope of the journal in question, in the style of a scientific article and written in clear English. Any article that has problems with any of the above criteria may be rejected at this stage.

Refereeing stage: Articles passing successfully through the pre-refereeing stage then begin formal peer review.

Research papers submitted for publication in the majority of Vietnam Journal of Science, Technology and Engineering are generally sent to two independent referees who are asked to report on the quality, novelty, scientific rigour, significance to the field and presentation.

Referees are selected from our reviewer database and we try to find the best combination of scientific expertise and referee experience for each paper.

In the interests of impartiality, if an author-suggested reviewer is used then we will complement this with a review from a second referee chosen by the journal from the general referee pool.

Vietnam Journal of Science, Technology and Engineering is committed to publishing high-quality material and have rejection rates about 50%.

If there is sufficient agreement between the referees,

  1. The paper may be accepted in current form;
  2. The referees' reports may be sent to the authors for revision of the paper;
  3. The paper may be rejected; or
  4. If the paper contains too many errors or problems for the referees to comment fully on the scientific content, the authors will be asked to make corrections and then resubmit the article.

In the case of rejection, authors have the right to appeal against this decision to the Editorial Board.

Revised papers: When authors make revisions to their article in response to the referees' comments they are asked to submit a list of changes and any replies for transmission to the referees. The revised version is usually returned to at least one of the original referees who is then asked whether the revisions are satisfactory. If the referees remain dissatisfied, the paper can be referred to the Editorial Board of the journal for further consideration.

Refereeing times: If a reviewer proves unable to report, we will try to find an alternative referee as quickly as possible. However, if a referee requests a short extension to their deadline for providing a report, we will usually grant this if it is reasonable. We try to strike a balance between the needs of authors (who will often ask for as fast a review as possible), and those of referees (who will often prefer to have more time to thoroughly study the paper and compose their report). In those rare cases where an article review process has been delayed due to unexpected difficulties in obtaining reports, we make use of our Editorial Board members' expertise to conclude the process swiftly.