Peer Review Process

QEMS follows a rigorous and transparent review process to ensure the quality and credibility of the published articles. The journal adopts a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review type, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous during the review process.

Submission and Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to QEMS undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess their suitability and compliance with the journal's scope and guidelines. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned a unique identification number for further processing.

The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted. Although rare, yet it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Each new submission is assessed by Editor using Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL) to determine whether it falls within the general remit of QEMS. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the QEMS. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.

Peer Review

Each eligible manuscript is then sent for review to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, experience, and prior contributions to the field. In cases where conflicting opinions arise, additional reviewers may be assigned to provide a comprehensive evaluation.

Double-Blind Review

QEMS ensures a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. This helps maintain objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process, minimizing potential biases.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific quality, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are encouraged to assist the authors in enhancing the quality of their work.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original by stating the objectives and gap clearly
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Has results/findings which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work
  • Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process.

Review Duration

QEMS strives to provide timely and efficient peer review. Reviewers are typically given a specific timeframe to complete their evaluations. Authors will be informed of the review process's estimated duration during the initial submission or after any significant revisions.

Decision and Revision

Upon completion of the peer review process, the editorial team considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Authors will receive a decision, which may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection. If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewers' comments thoroughly and resubmit the revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board members. The editorial team carefully considers the reviewers' assessments, the originality of the work, the relevance to the journal's scope, and the adherence to ethical standards before making a final decision.


QEMS maintains strict confidentiality of the peer review process. Reviewers are required to treat the manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents and should not disclose any information to unauthorized individuals.

Review Process Improvement

QEMS continuously seeks to improve its review process. Authors and reviewers' feedback are invaluable in this endeavor. The journal welcomes constructive feedback and suggestions to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the review process.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you are not currently a reviewer for QEMS but would like to be added as the reviewers, please contact us. The benefits of reviewing for QEMS include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in the related research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for QEMS as part of your professional development requirements. QEMS's reviewers are volunteers who contribute their expertise to the science, thus no financial payments are made.


For any inquiries or questions related to the review process, please contact the editorial team at qems[at]