Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers for R&D Modern Research Publication Journal submittals are selected by the editor based on the subject matter. The pool of reviewers consists of experienced industry professionals who participate or have participated on R&D Modern Research Publication committees as well as individuals who have expressed interest in reviewing papers. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, please contact editor.ijcrme[at]
R&D Modern Research Publication provides a manuscript review form (Attached by Mail) as a template for reviewer feedback. R&D Modern Research Publication requests that reviews be returned within 10-15 days of receipt of the paper. Send completed reviews to review.ijmrme[at]
1. Always refer the paper ID in your review and include your name.
2. Reviews are double-blind, we do not give the information’s about authors to the reviewer and vice versa. Both reviewers and authors don’t know to others. R&D Modern Research Publication will remove identifying information from your review before conveying them to the authors.
3. Compose your review in a constructive manner.
4. Use the “points to consider” below as a guideline for your comments.
5. Hand-marked comments on printed pages, conveyed to R&D Modern Research Publication as PDFs, are acceptable.
6. Include your rating of the paper (see below) and your recommendation for publication (see below). The R&D Modern Research Publication Journal review board weighs reviewer recommendations heavily when considering papers.

Points to Consider: These questions may be helpful to reviewers when composing reviews.

Interest and Subject Matter:
• Does this paper present substantially new information or new treatment of existing knowledge?
• Does the paper free of commercial implications seem to advocate special interests?
• Is the paper of potential value for practicing engineers and fabricators?
• Is the paper of probable interest and likely service to readers of the Engineering Journal?

Format and Technical Information:
• Does the title adequately describe the paper?
• Is there an objective?
• Is the paper both technically correct and professionally sound?
• Is the paper clear and concise?
• Are topics discussed in logical order?
• Is the paper free from unnecessary duplication of material in text, tables, and illustrations? If no, indicate items that can be deleted.
• Is the paper adequately illustrated (not too many or too few)? If not, what graphics are needed for a clearer presentation, and what graphics might be eliminated?
• Are the conclusions justified and explained in the body of the paper?
• Are there adequate references? Are all references relevant to the paper? Are all relevant references presented?

Guidelines for Rating Papers:
Excellent: The technical content of the paper is exceptionally thorough and well-presented. The paper presents no organizational issues and requires minimal editing.
Good: The technical content of the paper is acceptable and the presentation of information is clear and concise.
Average: The technical content of the paper is acceptable and the presentation of information is reasonably clear and concise. Style and editorial issues are minor and the paper may require minor author revisions.
Below Average: The technical content of the paper is of marginal quality and/or the presentation of information requires substantial rework. Style and editorial issues are numerous. The paper requires substantial reworking by the authors.
Poor: The technical content of the paper is weak and/or the presentation of information is confusing or incomplete. The paper–and perhaps the underlying research–requires substantial reworking by the authors

Guidelines for Publication Recommendations:
Accept: The paper in its current format may be published with minor editing.
Accept with Comments: The paper should be published, but the authors should address a few technical issues prior to publication. The technical issues are minor and may be verified by the editor without further technical review.
Revise and Resubmit: The paper topic is suitable for publication, but it requires significant reworking prior to publication. The paper will be re-reviewed to ensure the comments have been adequately addressed.
Decline: The technical content of the paper is not suitable for publication, the topic is outside the scope the journal, or the presentation and/or organization demonstrates minimal understanding of journal standards.