Editorial Policy

Peer Review Policy

Peer-reviewed publications are essential to advancing structured, credible, and high-quality academic research. Kertas of Engineering and Applied Science (KEAS) maintains rigorous peer-review standards to ensure the integrity, technical quality, and scholarly contribution of every published article.

KEAS uses a single-blind peer review system, in which the reviewers' identities are kept anonymous while authors’ identities are visible to the reviewers.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editors to assess their suitability based on:

  • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope

  • Originality and novelty

  • Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines

Manuscripts passing this screening are then forwarded for formal peer review.

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers selected for their subject-area expertise and familiarity with the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Novel engineering or applied science contributions

  • Significance: Valid findings with clear impact and justified conclusions

  • Structure and Format: Conformance to KEAS author guidelines

  • Relevance: Applicability and value to KEAS readership

  • Language Quality: Clarity and academic tone in English

  • Scientific Merit: Technical soundness and rigor

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, based on reviewer input and overall merit. Editors recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists (e.g., co-authorship, close personal relationships, institutional ties, or financial interest). Such manuscripts are reassigned to another impartial editor.

Review Outcomes

After peer review, one of the following decisions may be issued:

  • Accept as is – Rare; the manuscript is publishable without changes

  • Accept with minor revisions – Minor editorial or structural improvements needed

  • Accept after major revisions – Substantial improvements required in methodology, analysis, or clarity

  • Revise and resubmit – A significantly revised version may be reconsidered in a new review cycle

  • Reject – The manuscript is declined due to major flaws, lack of novelty, or misalignment with KEAS

Reviewer feedback may be edited by the editorial team to maintain constructive tone and remove confidential or inappropriate remarks. Any sensitive comments meant only for editors are kept in the confidential section of the review form.

Editorial Discretion

  • Editors and Editorial Board members may serve as reviewers if no conflict of interest exists.

  • The Editor-in-Chief may request additional expert reviews if needed.

  • Final decisions are informed by reviewer evaluations, author revisions, and the manuscript’s contribution to the field.

 

Review Process Flowchart