Review Policy

The Journal of Water Engineering and Management (JWEAM) follows a rigorous, transparent, unbiased and ethical peer-review policy to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific research.

Type of Peer Review

Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal or do not comply with the Author Guidelines are not considered for peer review. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is not permitted and will result in rejection.

Initial Screening

All manuscripts received for publication are initially screened by the Journal Office to assess for basic suitability/scope relevance, completeness, and compliance with author guidelines. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria are desk-rejected.

Plagiarism Check

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are subjected to a plagiarism check using standard similarity detection software. Submissions with unacceptable similarity are rejected. Manuscripts with plagiarism similarity greater than 20% or AI-generated content exceeding 10% (excluding references, standard methods, and commonly used technical phrases) will be rejected or returned to authors for revision, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Suitable manuscripts are then assigned to an Editor or Associate Editor to manage the peer-review process.

External Peer Review

JWEAM follows a double-blind peer-review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field selected by the handling editor. The Editor reserves the right to seek additional reviews whenever deemed necessary to ensure a fair and thorough evaluation.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, technical quality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Based on the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the Editor/Associate Editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. In the event of disputes, appeals, or ethical concerns, the Editor-in-Chief will review the case and take the final decision.

The journal is committed to maintaining integrity, fairness, and confidentiality throughout the peer-review process in accordance with internationally accepted publishing standards.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ comments, the editorial decision may be:

Accept

Minor Revision

Major Revision

Reject

Revised manuscripts are evaluated to ensure reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed. Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

Review Timeline

Initial screening: 1–2 weeks

Peer review: 4–6 weeks

Final decision: 6–8 weeks (on average)

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to:

Maintain confidentiality

Declare conflicts of interest

Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews