Peer Review Policy

Every submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team for:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of JDDIEA
• Basic scholarly and technical quality
• Completeness of the submission
• Originality and publication-ethics requirements
• Compliance with the journal's author guidelines

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, or unsuitable for further consideration may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

Manuscripts proceeding beyond editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

JDDIEA follows a double-anonymized review model:

• Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities.
• Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.
• Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial records.

Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymous review.

Reviewers should provide an independent and objective assessment of the manuscript.

A reviewer must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect impartial assessment and should decline the review where an appropriate independent evaluation cannot be provided.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal, professional, commercial, or research advantage.

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with another person without editorial permission.
• Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.
• Disclose information about the manuscript or review process.
• Use unpublished results, data, ideas, or methods for their own benefit.

Reviewers may consider factors including:

• Relevance to the scope of JDDIEA
• Originality and contribution
• Engineering significance
• Technical and methodological soundness
• Quality of experiments, simulations, datasets, or validation
• Interpretation of results
• Reproducibility and transparency
• Quality of figures, tables, and references
• Whether conclusions are supported by the evidence
• Research and publication ethics concerns

Following peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains with the handling editor and/or Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' reports, journal policies, scholarly merit, and relevance to JDDIEA. Where reviewer reports substantially disagree, the editor may seek an additional independent review.

Authors receiving a revision decision should submit:

• A revised manuscript
• A point-by-point response explaining how reviewer and editorial comments have been addressed.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or sent for further independent review. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

JDDIEA aims to conduct editorial screening promptly and to obtain peer-review reports within a reasonable period.

Review and decision timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revisions, and other editorial requirements.

JDDIEA does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed publication date.

Authors will be informed where substantial delays occur.

Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify possible:

• Plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Fabricated or falsified data
• Inappropriate image manipulation
• Citation manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Research ethics concerns
• Other suspected publication misconduct

Reviewers should report such concerns confidentially to the journal rather than attempting to investigate the authors independently.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, technical quality, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal.

Publication fees, commercial considerations, sponsorships, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other unrelated factors do not determine acceptance or rejection.

Research articles and review articles are subject to peer review unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Editorials, announcements, corrections, retractions, and other non-research editorial content may undergo editorial review rather than external peer review. Where an article follows a process different from the journal's standard peer review procedure, this will be stated transparently.