Review Policies

We receive a large number of submissions, and we make it clear even if we publish a few papers, these papers meet standards and novelty requirements. We lay down some principles and requirements as indicated below.

The submissions should ensure novelty and originality. Content should not been previously published

Methods used should be either new or incremental to the existing models

Data should be genuine and accurate, and we advocate the use of real data rather than simulation

The submissions should ensure a significant contribution to the domain The first process is to subject the papers to plagiarism, and AI tool use checks. Each paper is subjected to plagiarism and the use of AI tools. If the similarity of the content is detected, the papers will be rejected. Also, we will scan the paper to see whether any AI tool was used for writing. We use the necessary tools to detect plagiarism and AI tools.

Plagiarism and AI tools use

Submissions received in the submission system are subjected to the desk review process. The editors/editorial board read them and ensure the paper is worthy of review. They assess the overall quality, presentation, and contributions. When the editorial board approves the paper, it is forwarded to the reviewers.

Review Model

The MES Journal follows a triple-blind review system where each submission undergoes review by a minimum of three domain experts. The experts are selected based on their domain knowledge and research experience, as well as their publication and citation profile. A paper will be accepted ONLY if ALL three reviewers consistently recommend the acceptance. The journal uses an extreme review scale, which includes originality, novelty, methodological strength, experiments, data, inferences, analysis, presentation and language. The authors are clearly informed that the journal uses a very strong anti-plagiarism policy. Different teams check Plagiarism at many levels, including editors, sub-editors, reviewers and plagiarism detection experts. The journal requires the reviewers to recommend any one of the four decisions. It includes clear acceptance, major revision, minor revision and rejection. In the last ten years, the journal has not received any clear acceptance from the reviewers. The papers that are recommended for major revisions are not accepted.

Review Scale

The journal uses a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6. Zero means total rejection, and six indicates clear acceptance. These scales are based on the review recommendations. The mean scale is indicated in the published paper. Besides, we measure how reviewers are consistent with the review process. If the reviewer's consistency is low, we will subject the paper to review further. We use sentiment analysis to convert the review text to review scores.