Peer Review

Peer review is a critical procedure to ensure the academic quality and validity of published manuscripts. Reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to improve manuscripts; their contributions are sincerely acknowledged and respected.

GENERAL POLICY

This journal adheres to the core principles of publication ethics as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The peer review process may operate in single-blind, double-blind, open, or transparent modes, with double-blind review being primary for this journal.

We invite worldwide experts in the relevant field to make a double-blind peer review of manuscripts submitted by authors. Review comments are fully considered to ensure the academic value of the journal. The primary task of reviewers is to evaluate the validity of the approach, the significance and originality of the finding, its interest and timeliness to the scientific community, and the clarity of the writing. A qualified peer reviewer should send his/her feedback (even decline to review due to some reasons) as per the time frame of the journal. All peer reviewers must maintain a strict and perpetual confidentiality for the content of all manuscripts under their review and for any related correspondences with the journal editorial team. Reviewers must not share any part of the manuscript with a third party or discuss its content with the authors of the manuscript or any other person. Reviewers must not plagiarize or cite any of the contents of a manuscript before the manuscript has been formally published. Reviewers will decline participation in the peer review process for any manuscript if a conflict of interest exists, including interests related to the manuscript’s authors, personal interests, or academic or economic interests. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent during the peer review process, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Office immediately. The following reasons are adequate, alone or in combination, for rejection of a manuscript for publication: (1) The scientific content does not correspond to the journal’s aims and scope; (2) The research is not reasonably designed and the data are inadequate to support proper explanations or conclusions; (3) Related work has been previously published and only a few new points have been added; (4) The article contains accumulated information that has been previously published, with only few technical improvements; (5) The article is expected to attract only a very small portion of the journal’s readership audience; (6) The article has been rejected previously and resubmitted without adding any new valuable content.

I. Responsibilities of Editors
Editors must:
1.Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities throughout the review process.
2.Declare and avoid conflicts of interest (e.g., institutional, financial, or collaborative ties to authors) when handling submissions.
3.Make initial screening decisions based on academic merit, scope fit, and ethical compliance (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).
4.Select unbiased reviewers with relevant expertise, avoiding those from the same institution as authors or with recent co-authorship relationships.
5.Handle appeals or complaints according to COPE guidelines, ensuring due process.

II. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must:
1.Confidentiality & Data Security
Maintain perpetual confidentiality of manuscript content and related correspondence.
Do not share, discuss, or upload manuscripts to non-secure platforms (including AI tools).

2.Conflict of Interest
Decline review if conflicts exist (e.g., competitive research, financial ties, personal/professional relationships with authors).
Immediately notify the Editorial Office if conflicts emerge during review.

3.Timeliness & Integrity
Provide feedback within the journal’s timeframe or decline promptly.
Do not plagiarize or cite unpublished manuscript content.
Use AI tools only for language polishing (not for content analysis/decision-making), and disclose usage in comments to editors.

4.Ethical Vigilance
Identify potential ethical violations (e.g., unattributed text reuse, unethical data collection).

III. Authors' Obligations
Authors must:
Disclose AI-assisted writing tools (e.g., ChatGPT) in the cover letter and methods section. AI cannot be listed as an author or cited as a source.
Ensure originality of all content, including AI-generated text/images.

IV. Appeal

The authors have the right to appeal if they have a genuine cause to believe that the editorial board has wrongly rejected the paper. If the authors wish to appeal against the editorial decision, they should email the editorial office (Email: editorialoffice@vtejournal.com) explaining in detail the reason for the appeal. The appeals will be acknowledged by the editorial office and will be investigated in an unbiased manner. The processing of appeals will be done within 6–8 weeks. While under appeal, the said manuscript should not be submitted to other journals. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Second appeals are not considered.

MAJOR POINTS FOR REVIEWER COMMENTS
Reviewers should evaluate:
1.Importance and significance of findings.
2.Novelty and innovation.
3.Quality of presentation and readability.
4.Ethics compliance (e.g., IRB approval for human/animal studies, informed consent).
5.Soundness of study design and supporting data.
6.Language quality (flag if professional polishing is needed).

SPECIFIC POINTS FOR REVIEWER COMMENTS
Title/Abstract: Accuracy and clarity of research scope and innovation.
Methods: Sufficient detail for reproducibility; appropriateness of statistics.
Results: Adequacy of evidence and data presentation.
Discussion: Logical organization and evidence-supported conclusions.
References: Relevance, appropriateness, and up-to-date sources (≥ 50% within 3 years recommended).
Tables/Figures: Conciseness and alignment with key findings.

Please contact us for more policy regarding peer review.