Reviewer Guidelines

1. The Refereeing System

1.1 Duties of Reviewers

Maintain Quality: Assist the editor in maintaining the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the papers published in Environment and Energy Informatics.

Constructive Criticism: Provide authors with clear, professional, and constructive feedback to improve the quality, clarity, and scientific contribution of their manuscripts.

Expertise Recognition: Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and subject expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Independent Reviews: Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may consult a third reviewer or seek further editorial assessment.

Timely Response: Reviewers are expected to respond to the review invitation within the requested period, typically within 7 days. If they are unable to accept the invitation or meet the review deadline, they should inform the editor promptly.

1.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity

Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must treat all submitted material, including data, methods, results, and ideas, as confidential and must not disclose or discuss them with others without editorial permission.

Anonymity: The journal follows a double-blind review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to support objective and unbiased assessment.

2. Identifying and Selecting Appropriate Reviewers

2.1 Qualities of a Good Reviewer

Expertise: Demonstrated knowledge in one or more areas directly relevant to the manuscript.

Objectivity: Ability to assess the manuscript fairly, impartially, and without personal or institutional bias.

No Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the invitation if they cannot provide an unbiased review.

Good Judgment: Ability to evaluate the scientific merit, originality, methodological strength, and practical or theoretical significance of the work.

Clear Thinking: Ability to critically examine arguments, methods, results, and interpretations in a logical manner.

Writing Skills: Ability to provide a clear, coherent, and professionally written review report.

Accuracy: Reviews should be factually grounded, balanced, and evidence-based.

Timeliness: Ability to complete the review within the agreed timeline.

2.2 Reviewer Database

Maintenance: The editorial office maintains a database of qualified reviewers with expertise across environment, energy, informatics, data science, geospatial systems, modelling, and related interdisciplinary fields.

Performance Monitoring: Editors monitor reviewer performance with respect to review quality, professionalism, and timeliness. Poor-quality, consistently delayed, or abusive reviews are not acceptable and may lead to removal from the reviewer database.

3. A Fair Peer Review Process

3.1 Minimizing Bias

Blinded Review: The journal uses a double-blind peer review process to minimize bias.

Multiple Reviewers: Research articles, review articles, and other scholarly submissions are typically evaluated by multiple reviewers.

Consistent Standards: The same editorial and review standards are applied across all submissions.

Confidentiality: Communications among authors, editors, and reviewers remain confidential unless disclosure is required for ethical reasons or agreed to by all relevant parties.

3.2 Editorial Independence

Unbiased Decisions: Editors make publication decisions independently on the basis of academic merit, journal scope, reviewer input, and editorial judgment.

Conflict of Interest: Editors and editorial board members do not participate in decisions regarding manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.

4. Authors’ Right to Appeal

4.1 Appeal Process

Mediation: The editor may mediate exchanges between authors and reviewers when clarification is needed during the review process.

Additional Reviews: If substantial disagreement remains unresolved, the editor may invite one or more additional reviewers or undertake further editorial assessment.

Final Decision: The final decision rests with the editor and editorial board.

5. Checklist for Reviewers

5.1 Scientific Focus and Standards

Importance and Novelty: Is the study significant, relevant, and sufficiently original?

Title and Abstract: Does the title appropriately reflect the content? Does the abstract accurately summarize the study?

Objectives: Are the aims, research questions, or hypotheses clearly stated?

Methodology: Are the methods, models, datasets, and analytical procedures appropriate, sound, and sufficiently described?

Results and Interpretation: Are the results clearly presented and properly interpreted? Are the conclusions supported by evidence?

References: Are the references relevant, current, and adequate?

Contribution: Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution to environment, energy, informatics, or related interdisciplinary fields?

5.2 Editorial and Presentation Standards

Structure and Length: Does the manuscript follow the journal’s formatting, structure, and submission requirements?

Writing Quality: Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and understandable?

Figures and Tables: Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials relevant, clear, and properly presented?

6. Writing the Review Report

6.1 Constructive Feedback

Clear and Concise: Comments should be specific, professional, and concise.

Substantive Guidance: Reviewers should identify strengths and weaknesses and provide practical suggestions for improvement where necessary.

Professional Tone: Criticism should focus on the manuscript, not the authors.

6.2 Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and of the review process at all times.

Avoid Misuse: Reviewers must not use unpublished information, arguments, or data from the manuscript for personal advantage, research, or publication.

Ethical Concerns: If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated data, unethical research practices, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, they should report these concerns confidentially to the editor.