Peer Review Policy

1. Principles of Peer Review

The ETII peer-review process is guided by the following principles:

• Academic independence: editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and relevance rather than commercial or non-academic considerations.
• Confidentiality: manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential throughout the review process.
• Impartiality: reviewers and editors are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and without inappropriate bias.
• Expert assessment: reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant disciplinary and methodological expertise.
• Constructive evaluation: reviews should help editors make informed decisions and assist authors in improving their work.
• Conflict-of-interest management: editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise impartiality.
• Research integrity: potential ethical or integrity concerns identified during review are examined before publication decisions are finalized.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. This stage is intended to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for further evaluation.

The editorial assessment may consider:

• fit with the aims and scope of ETII;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• technical and methodological adequacy;
• clarity of the research question and contribution;
• quality of presentation;
• sufficiency of experimental, computational, theoretical, or empirical validation;
• compliance with journal policies and submission requirements;
• research ethics and publication ethics requirements;
• appropriateness and integrity of references;
• possible duplication, plagiarism, or other integrity concerns; and
• whether the manuscript is sufficiently developed to justify external peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, methodologically inadequate, insufficiently original, or inconsistent with journal policies may be declined at the initial screening stage without external review.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter and methodology.

Reviewer selection may take into consideration:

• subject-area expertise;
• methodological expertise;
• recent scholarly activity;
• relevant publication record;
• absence of significant conflicts of interest;
• previous review quality and reliability, where known;
• geographical and institutional diversity where appropriate; and
• the need for complementary expertise when a manuscript is interdisciplinary.

Reviewers should be sufficiently independent from the authors and from the research under evaluation. Editors may invite additional reviewers when specialist expertise is required or when initial reviewer reports are substantially divergent.

4. Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may be invited to suggest potential reviewers during submission. Such suggestions are considered advisory only and do not guarantee that the suggested individuals will be invited.

Suggested reviewers should:

• possess relevant scholarly expertise;
• be independent of the authors;
• not have a close personal, professional, supervisory, or financial relationship with the authors;
• not normally belong to the same institution as the authors;
• not have a recent pattern of close collaboration with the authors; and
• be identifiable through legitimate institutional or scholarly credentials.

The editorial office independently verifies reviewer suitability and retains full discretion over reviewer selection.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript according to criteria appropriate to the manuscript type. These may include:

• Originality: whether the study offers a meaningful new contribution.
• Significance: whether the findings are scientifically, technologically, or industrially important.
• Methodological rigor: whether the methods are appropriate, sufficiently described, and technically sound.
• Validation: whether claims are supported by adequate experiments, simulations, data, proofs, comparisons, or other evidence.
• Reproducibility: whether sufficient detail is provided for meaningful verification or replication where applicable.
• Literature positioning: whether the work is appropriately situated within relevant prior research.
• Data and statistical quality: whether data handling, statistical analysis, and uncertainty reporting are appropriate.
• Technical clarity: whether models, algorithms, equations, architectures, and experimental settings are clearly explained.
• Figures and tables: whether visual and tabular materials accurately and effectively communicate the results.
• Interpretation: whether conclusions are supported by the reported evidence.
• Limitations: whether important limitations and boundary conditions are adequately acknowledged.
• Industrial relevance: where applicable, whether practical or engineering implications are credible and sufficiently demonstrated.
• Ethical compliance: whether the study appears consistent with applicable research and publication ethics requirements.

6. Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports should be evidence-based, specific, respectful, and constructive. Reviewers should explain the reasoning behind major recommendations and distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

Reviewers should not:

• make personal or disparaging comments about authors;
• request citations primarily to increase citations to themselves or associated publications;
• use confidential manuscript information for personal or professional advantage;
• attempt to identify authors for non-essential purposes;
• contact authors directly concerning a manuscript under review; or
• delegate the review to another individual without editorial authorization.

7. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer invitations, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, figures, supplementary files, and related materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not share manuscript files or confidential information with unauthorized individuals. Manuscript content must not be used in the reviewer's own research before publication without appropriate authorization.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any financial, professional, academic, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably be perceived to affect impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

• recent or ongoing research collaboration;
• employment at the same institution;
• recent supervisory or mentoring relationships;
• close personal relationships;
• direct academic competition;
• financial interests related to the manuscript;
• involvement in closely related commercial or intellectual-property matters; or
• any other circumstance that could compromise or appear to compromise objective evaluation.

When a significant conflict exists, the reviewer or editor should decline participation or disclose the conflict to the journal so that appropriate action can be taken.

9. Editorial Independence and Editor Conflicts

Editors must not handle manuscripts where their involvement could create a significant conflict of interest or reasonable perception of bias.

Where an Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Editorial Board Member, Guest Editor, or other member of the journal's editorial structure is an author of a submitted manuscript, that individual must not participate in reviewer selection, editorial discussion, or the final publication decision concerning that manuscript.

Such submissions should be assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

10. Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision. The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports together with the manuscript and may consider the strength of the evidence, methodological quality, reviewer reasoning, relevance to the journal, and compliance with journal policies.

Editorial decisions may include:

A revision decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

11. Divergent Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations may differ substantially. Editors do not make decisions by simply counting reviewer recommendations.

Where reports conflict, the editor may:

• evaluate the strength and relevance of each reviewer's arguments;
• request clarification from one or more reviewers;
• invite an additional independent reviewer;
• seek specialist methodological advice; or
• make an editorial judgment based on the complete scholarly record.

12. Revised Manuscripts

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should:

• address each substantive comment;
• identify where changes have been made;
• provide additional evidence where required;
• explain respectfully when a recommendation has not been followed; and
• ensure consistency between the response letter and revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the scope and significance of the revisions.

13. Multiple Review Rounds

A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision when necessary to address substantial technical, methodological, interpretive, ethical, or reporting concerns.

Repeated revision is not intended to guarantee acceptance. Editors may decline a manuscript if major concerns remain unresolved after revision.

14. Reviewer Anonymity

Under the double-blind review model, reviewer identities are normally kept confidential from authors. Reviewers should not include identifying information in comments intended for authors.

Editorial communications, internal reviewer information, and reviewer identities are handled in accordance with the journal's confidentiality and data-protection practices.

15. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Peer review requires accountable expert judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, reasoning, confidentiality, and recommendations contained in their reports.

Reviewers must not upload or otherwise disclose confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, reviewer instructions, or other confidential journal materials to public or unauthorized generative artificial intelligence systems.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly evaluation. Any use of approved tools must preserve confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property, and reviewer accountability.

16. Research and Publication Integrity Concerns

If editors or reviewers identify concerns involving possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, ethical non-compliance, peer-review manipulation, or other potential misconduct, the review process may be suspended while the matter is evaluated.

The journal may request explanations, original data, ethics documentation, source files, methodological records, or other relevant information before reaching an editorial decision.

17. Citation Requests by Reviewers

Reviewers may recommend additional references when those references are genuinely relevant to improving scholarly context, correcting an omission, or supporting the technical evaluation of a manuscript.

Reviewers must not request citations primarily for the purpose of increasing citations to themselves, their associates, a particular journal, or a particular body of work.

Authors are not required to add references that are not academically relevant to the manuscript.

18. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Collections

Manuscripts submitted to Special Issues or other guest-edited collections are subject to the same standards of originality, research integrity, methodological quality, and peer review as regular submissions.

Guest Editors may coordinate the review of submissions within their areas of expertise but must comply with ETII's conflict-of-interest and editorial-independence requirements.

When a Guest Editor has a conflict of interest with a submission, the manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor.

The journal retains editorial oversight of Special Issues and may intervene where necessary to protect peer-review integrity and publication standards.

19. Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and Editorial Board Members are permitted to submit scholarly work to ETII. Such submissions receive no preferential treatment.

The submitting editor or board member must be excluded from all editorial handling, reviewer selection, editorial discussion, and decision-making for the manuscript.

The manuscript should be handled by an independent editor under the same peer-review standards applied to other submissions.

20. Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual, methodological, procedural, or interpretive error may submit a reasoned appeal.

An appeal should:

• identify the manuscript clearly;
• state the grounds for appeal;
• address the relevant editorial or reviewer comments specifically;
• provide evidence supporting the request for reconsideration; and
• avoid simply restating disagreement with the editorial outcome.

Appeals may be evaluated by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision when appropriate. Reconsideration does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

21. Complaints Concerning Peer Review

Concerns regarding reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, editorial procedure, or other aspects of peer review may be reported to the journal.

Complaints are assessed on their merits and, where appropriate, independently from the individuals directly involved in the disputed matter.

22. Withdrawal During Peer Review

Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript after submission should contact the editorial office and provide a clear request for withdrawal.

A manuscript should not be submitted simultaneously to another journal while it remains under active consideration by ETII.

23. Review Timelines

ETII seeks to provide timely editorial decisions while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.

Review duration may vary depending on:

• the complexity and interdisciplinarity of the manuscript;
• the availability of appropriate expert reviewers;
• the need for additional specialist assessment;
• the extent of revisions required; and
• the number of review rounds.

The journal prioritizes a thorough and credible evaluation over artificially fixed review deadlines.

24. Reviewer Recognition

ETII recognizes peer review as an important scholarly contribution. Where appropriate and consistent with confidentiality requirements, the journal may provide reviewer certificates, acknowledgement records, or other forms of recognition for completed reviews.

Public recognition must not disclose the association between a reviewer and a specific manuscript unless disclosure has been explicitly authorized.

25. Responsibility for the Final Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal's responsible academic editor, normally the Editor-in-Chief or a duly assigned independent editor.

Acceptance requires that the editor is satisfied that the manuscript has achieved an appropriate level of scholarly quality, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to ETII.

Peer Review Process at a Glance