Guidelines for Reviewers

Clean Technology for Resource, Energy and Environment (CTREE) employs a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This system is designed to ensure impartial, objective, and fair evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scholarly standards of the Journal.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should ensure that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and that they can complete the review within the requested timeframe, normally two weeks. Reviewers should also carefully consider whether any financial, professional, academic, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest exist that could affect their impartiality. Any potential conflict should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief before accepting the assignment.

In assessing a manuscript, reviewers should evaluate its originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, and overall quality. Particular attention should be given to the clarity and organization of the manuscript, the relevance and currency of the literature reviewed, the appropriateness of the research methods, the accuracy and interpretation of the data, and the extent to which the results support the conclusions. Reviewers should also consider the quality and presentation of tables, figures, statistical analyses, and other supporting materials.

Review reports should be objective, constructive, and detailed enough to assist both the authors and the editorial team. Comments should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, indicate areas requiring clarification or revision, and provide recommendations for improving the quality and presentation of the work.

All materials received for review must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the contents of a manuscript for personal advantage without prior authorization from the Journal. Any concerns regarding plagiarism, research misconduct, ethical issues, data manipulation, or other irregularities should be reported promptly to the editorial office.

Reviewer recommendations are highly valued and form an important part of the editorial decision-making process. However, the final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.