Peer Review Policy
Peer review is a critical factor in promoting the rigor and high quality of scientific research. The entire scientific community benefits when the peer-review process is timely, thorough, and balanced. The editors of Frontiers of Engineering Management (FEM) greatly appreciate the tremendous collective contribution that reviewers make to our journal. We hope that the guidelines described below will help facilitate peer review as a conversation between authors and reviewers, and as an essential element of the publication process. 
Reviewer invitations for FEM are sent out by email from the Editorial Board through the online submission and review system. The invitation includes information about the title and abstract of the manuscript and an indication of the time frame in which we would like to receive the review. After agreeing to review the paper, the reviewer has access to the entire manuscript. We encourage reviewers to contact the Editorial Office at any time if they require additional information or assistance. Average time from submission to final decision: 90 days.
The content of the review
The core of any review is an objective assessment of both the technical rigor and the novelty of the presented work. Key features of a review include:
a) An outline of the conceptual advance over previously published work;
b) A specific recommendation;
c) The reasons for that recommendation;
d) A summary of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the paper. 

General Duties and Responsibilities for Reviewers

1. Conflicts of Interest
If an editor or reviewer identifies a conflict of interest with an assigned manuscript, as outlined below, it must be promptly reported to the editorial office to request recusal from the review process:

· The reviewer has a close familial relationship with the authors.

· The reviewer and the authors are affiliated with the same organization.

· The reviewer has collaborated with the authors on research projects, academic papers, or similar activities within the past five years.

· The reviewer and the authors have a supervisor-student relationship.

· The reviewer and the authors were mentored by the same graduate advisor.

· The reviewer holds a paid part-time position, such as a professor or scholar, at the authors’ affiliated institution.

· Any other conflict of interest or situation that could compromise the impartiality of the review.

2. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Information contained in a submitted manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others without the written permission of the editor-in-chief.

3. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted objectively and constructively. Personal criticism of the authors is not permitted. Editors and reviewers should provide clear, well-supported arguments to substantiate their assessments. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript. Editors and reviewers are all responsible for the accuracy of their opinions, decisions, and final report.

4. Punctuality
Editors or reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate an assigned manuscript or unable to provide a timely review must notify the editorial office or editor-in-chief promptly to be excused from the review process.