The Iranian Electric Industry Journal of Quality and Productivity (IEIJQP) uses a rigorous double-blind peer review process for evaluating submitted manuscripts.
Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, each manuscript is initially examined by the Editorial Office and the relevant editorial staff to determine whether it:
•    falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
•    follows the journal's manuscript preparation requirements;
•    meets the basic structural and technical requirements of the journal;
•    complies with the journal's publication and ethical requirements; and
•    is suitable for further editorial consideration.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements of the journal may be returned to the authors for correction or may be rejected before external peer review.
Editorial Assessment
After the initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate member of the Editorial Board for further assessment and selection of reviewers.
Double-Blind Peer Review
IEIJQP uses a double-blind peer review system.
Under this system, the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed during the peer review process.
Authors are required to submit an anonymized version of the manuscript for peer review in accordance with the journal's submission requirements.
Number of Reviewers
Each manuscript selected for external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scientific and technical expertise.
The journal may seek additional reviewers when necessary, particularly when the reviewers' recommendations are substantially different or when additional expertise is required.
Review Process
The general editorial and peer review process consists of the following stages:
1.    Submission of the manuscript by the corresponding author.
2.    Initial editorial and technical screening.
3.    Approval for external peer review and selection of reviewers.
4.    Evaluation by at least two independent reviewers.
5.    Communication of reviewers' comments to the authors when revision is required.
6.    Revision of the manuscript by the authors.
7.    Further review of the revised manuscript when necessary.
8.    Final editorial assessment.
9.    Final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.
10.    Preparation and publication of the accepted article.
Revision
When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond to reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript accordingly.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
Final Review
Following revision, the manuscript may be submitted to a final reviewer for assessment of the revisions and the authors' responses.
The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Editorial Board based on the reviewers' recommendations and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript.
Possible Editorial Decisions
The editorial decision may include:
•    Acceptance;
•    Revision;
•    Major Revision;
•    Minor Revision; or
•    Rejection.
A positive recommendation by a reviewer does not automatically guarantee acceptance. The final decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial authority.
Approximate Review Time
The duration of the review process depends on the availability and responsiveness of reviewers and the nature of the manuscript.
The overall review process may normally take approximately 4 to 12 months, although the actual duration may vary.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts for purposes unrelated to the review process.
Communication with Authors
All official communications concerning the review, revision, acceptance, and publication of a manuscript are conducted primarily with the corresponding author through the journal's online submission system and/or official editorial communication channels.
Authors can monitor the status and progress of their submissions through their personal account in the journal's submission system.
Special Issues
If the journal publishes special issues, manuscripts submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial and peer review standards as manuscripts submitted to regular issues.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall editorial responsibility for the content of special issues.
Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office.
The appeal should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate editorial authority.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts and are not determined by commercial or financial considerations.