Peer Review Policy

The Malaysian Journal of Computing and Engineering Technology (MJCET) is committed to maintaining rigorous, fair, transparent and impartial peer review. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process to assess the quality, originality, validity and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. The process supports the integrity of published research and ensures that editorial decisions are based on academic merit rather than authors’ identities, institutional affiliations or personal interests.

MJCET conducts its peer review process in accordance with its publication ethics policies and draws on recognised publication ethics principles, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant guidance.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to MJCET undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s basic requirements and are considered suitable for further consideration proceed to external peer review.

MJCET applies a double-blind peer review model under which:

• Authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.
• Reviewers are not provided with the identities of the authors.

The journal takes reasonable measures to preserve the anonymity of both parties throughout the review process. However, double-blind review cannot guarantee complete anonymity, particularly where a manuscript’s subject matter, methodology or publicly available research information may reveal the authors’ identities.

Authors must submit two versions of the manuscript:

• An anonymised manuscript: excludes authors’ names, affiliations, acknowledgements and other identifying information from the main document and supplementary files intended for reviewers.
• A complete manuscript: includes the full title, authors’ names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author’s contact details, acknowledgements and other required declarations for editorial use.

Authors must ensure that identifying information is removed from the anonymised manuscript and its file metadata where practicable.

MJCET may reject manuscripts without external peer review if they fall outside the journal’s aims and scope or fail to meet its basic scholarly, methodological, ethical or submission requirements.

Editors, reviewers and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial correspondence. Disclosure is permitted only where necessary for legitimate editorial purposes and consistent with the journal’s policies.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript to determine whether it is suitable for further consideration. The screening covers:

• relevance to MJCET’s aims and scope;
• originality and potential contribution to computing, engineering technology or related fields within the journal’s scope;
• theoretical, conceptual or technical soundness;
• appropriateness of the research design, methodology and analysis;
• clarity, structure and quality of academic writing;
• compliance with submission requirements and ethical standards; and
• completeness of required declarations, references and supporting information.

The journal also conducts appropriate similarity screening to identify potential plagiarism, unattributed overlap or other publication integrity concerns. Similarity reports are interpreted in context and are not treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct on their own.

Where necessary, editors may request preliminary corrections or clarification. Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal’s requirements may be rejected before external review.

3. Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area, methodology or technical content of the submission.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• relevant subject expertise and research experience;
• an appropriate academic or professional background;
• familiarity with the research methods or technical approaches used;
• the ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment;
• the absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and
• availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

The editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and assessing the suitability of their recommendations. The journal may appoint additional reviewers when necessary, including when the initial reports conflict substantially or further technical or methodological expertise is required.

Reviewer identities are kept confidential from authors. Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors through unauthorised means or contact them directly about a manuscript under review.

4. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly quality, originality, methodological validity, relevance to the journal’s scope and the evidence provided in the manuscript and reviewer reports.

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest. An editor with a relevant conflict must not handle the manuscript or participate in its editorial decision-making. The manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors or Editorial Board members are subject to the same screening requirements, double-blind review process and acceptance criteria as other submissions. The submitting individual must have no involvement in reviewer selection, editorial deliberations or the final decision. An independent editor will oversee the process.

No author receives preferential treatment because of institutional affiliation, professional position, editorial appointment, funding source or personal relationship. Commercial, institutional and personal interests must not override editorial independence.

The Editor-in-Chief holds overall responsibility for the journal’s editorial standards. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest or is an author of the manuscript, the final decision must be made by an appropriately authorised independent editor.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide fair, objective, constructive and evidence-based evaluations;
• assess the manuscript’s originality, technical or theoretical contribution, methodology, analysis, conclusions and presentation;
• identify relevant published work that the authors may have overlooked;
• distinguish major scientific or technical concerns from minor editorial corrections;
• maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and all associated materials;
• disclose relevant conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation;
• decline or withdraw from a review when impartiality may be compromised;
• refrain from using unpublished information for personal, professional or financial advantage; and
• submit reports within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor promptly of any delay.

Reviewer comments must be professional, relevant and supported by clear reasoning. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks and requests for unnecessary citations to the reviewer’s own work are unacceptable.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts or upload confidential manuscript content to generative AI tools or other third-party services unless the journal has explicitly authorised a secure system and the use complies with its Generative AI Policy, confidentiality requirements and applicable data protection obligations.

MJCET may remove reviewers from its reviewer database if they repeatedly fail to comply with these responsibilities or engage in inappropriate review practices.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to the submission, which may include:

1. Originality and contribution: the novelty, significance and relevance of the work.
2. Technical or theoretical soundness: the validity of the underlying concepts, assumptions, design or engineering approach.
3. Methodological rigour: the appropriateness, reliability and reproducibility of the methods and procedures.
4. Analysis and interpretation: the adequacy of the analysis, the support for the findings and the consistency of the conclusions with the evidence.
5. Research integrity: the appropriateness of citations, data reporting, ethical approvals and relevant declarations.
6. Presentation and clarity: the organisation, accuracy, completeness and readability of the manuscript.
7. Relevance to MJCET: the contribution to the journal’s aims, scope and intended scholarly readership.

Not every criterion carries equal weight for every manuscript. Reviewers should consider the type of research, its objectives and the standards of the relevant discipline.

7. Editorial Decisions

The editor makes the editorial decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, the journal’s standards and any relevant ethical concerns. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it automatically.

Possible decisions are:

• Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision.
• Minor Revision: limited changes are required before a final decision.
• Major Revision: substantial changes are required, and further editorial assessment or external review may be necessary.
• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication.

Authors receive anonymised reviewer comments and the editor’s decision with an explanation of the principal reasons for the outcome, as appropriate.

Where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the editor may invite an additional independent review or make a reasoned decision based on the available evidence, the manuscript’s scholarly merit and its compliance with journal standards.

The editor may reject a manuscript despite favourable reviewer recommendations if significant concerns remain about originality, methodology, research integrity, relevance or publication ethics. Conversely, revision recommendations do not guarantee acceptance.

8. Revision and Resubmission

When revision is requested, authors must:

• submit a revised manuscript within the specified deadline or request an extension;
• provide a point-by-point response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments;
• explain how each concern has been addressed or provide a reasoned justification where a suggestion has not been adopted; and
• clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to new reviewers where appropriate or assessed by the editor. The journal may request further revisions if substantial concerns remain unresolved.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in closure of the submission. Resubmission after closure may be treated as a new submission at the journal’s discretion.

9. Confidentiality, Research Integrity and Ethical Safeguards

MJCET protects the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports and editorial communications. Access to these materials is restricted to individuals who require them for legitimate editorial purposes.

The journal takes appropriate steps to identify and address concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate submission or publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship disputes and other potential breaches of publication ethics.

Where concerns arise, the journal may request explanations, supporting documentation or additional information from the authors. Relevant cases are handled in accordance with MJCET’s publication ethics policies and applicable COPE guidance.

The use of generative AI in peer review and editorial handling must comply with the journal’s Generative AI Policy. Confidential material must not be disclosed to unauthorised AI systems, and AI tools must not replace the independent professional judgement of reviewers or editors.

The journal may suspend editorial consideration while a significant integrity concern is assessed. Appropriate action will depend on the evidence and may include rejection, correction, an expression of concern or retraction where warranted.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written, reasoned request to the journal. The appeal must identify specific grounds, such as a factual error in the assessment, a demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript or evidence of a procedural irregularity that may have affected the decision.

Disagreement with a decision, without substantive supporting reasons, is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately appointed independent editor will assess the appeal. An individual involved in the original decision must not independently determine an appeal where a conflict of interest exists. The journal may seek an additional independent assessment if necessary.

Following review, the journal will communicate its decision and the principal reasons. The appeal outcome is final within the journal’s editorial process.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial decisions, conflicts of interest or potential breaches of publication ethics may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief. Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an appropriate independent authority within the journal’s publishing organisation.

11. Peer Review Timeline

MJCET aims to complete the initial editorial screening promptly and to obtain external reviewer reports within approximately 6–8 weeks of sending a manuscript for review, subject to reviewer availability and the complexity of the submission.

This period is an indicative target rather than a guarantee. The overall time to publication may be longer because of reviewer recruitment, additional reviews, revisions, author response times or further editorial assessment.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to minimise avoidable delays and communicate significant delays to authors where appropriate.

12. Accountability and Policy Review

MJCET is responsible for maintaining a consistent and credible peer review process. The journal may periodically review its procedures to ensure that they remain appropriate to developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity standards and the journal’s disciplinary scope.

By submitting a manuscript to MJCET, authors agree to comply with the journal’s submission, peer review and publication ethics requirements. Reviewers and editors are likewise expected to observe the responsibilities established by this policy.

MJCET is committed to ensuring that every editorial decision is made fairly, independently and transparently, with the primary objective of publishing reliable, original and technically sound scholarly work.