The review of technical papers submitted for possible publication is a vital part of the learned function of Engineers Australia in its production of high quality technical engineering journals. The participation of suitably qualified, independent, voluntary referees is greatly appreciated. These guidelines are intended to clarify the nature of the required reviews and the options open to reviewers. Engineers Media, as the publishing subsidiary of Engineers Australia, in Sydney, is responsible for the coordination and production of the technical journals. Reviewers are required to complete their reviews via Engineers Media’s Editorial Manager journal coordination system (see Instructions on how to review a paper using Editorial Manager). Papers to be published as refereed technical papers may fall into one of the following categories:

1. Research/development paper: A paper making an original contribution to engineering knowledge.
   
2. Special interest paper/project report: Report on significant aspects of a major or notable project with an innovative element.
   
3. Review paper for specialists: An authoritative overview of a relevant area intended for specialists in the field covered.
   
4. Review paper for non-specialists: An overview of a relevant area suitable for a reader with a relevant engineering background.
   
5. Tutorial paper: A paper which explains an important subject or clarifies the approach to an area of design or investigation.
   
6. Technical note: A technical note, or a letter to the Editor, which is not sufficiently developed or extensive in scope to constitute a full paper.

The expected length of acceptable contributions will vary considerably, but 5000 to 6000 words or equivalent for papers would be the norm. Technical notes should not exceed 1500 words.

The review
Reviewers should consider the paper and select the category on the review form which best fits their opinion of the work:

• Accept – Reviewer recommends the paper for inclusion in the journal. Author is to note minor corrections, remarks, typographical errors, etc.
  
• Minor revision – Reviewer recommends the paper for inclusion in the journal subject to author addressing specific comments from the reviewer.
  
• Major revision – Reviewer does not recommend the paper for publication in its present form. Complete revision in line with reviewers’ comment is required and subjection to further review by original reviewers is essential.
  
• Reject – Reviewer does not recommend the paper for publication at all.
  

Papers should be assessed according to the:

• Value of content to engineering knowledge: The work must be relevant to the field.
  
• Degree of originality: The work should reflect new developments or, in the case of review and tutorial papers, contribute to the understanding of new developments.
  
• Degree of interest created.
  
• Logical development, clarity and completeness: The paper should be clearly laid out, well-written and grammatically correct.
  

Reviewers should also indicate the level of their own expertise in the subject matter of the paper.

To assist the authors in responding to the reviewer’s report and the editor in assessing the revised manuscripts, reviewers are requested to make their comments as specific as possible, distinguishing clearly between requests for essential additions or corrections, and suggestions for desirable improvements. If the review identifies a need for significant editing of the final manuscript to ensure appropriate standards of English expression, this should be stated in the report.

Reviews should be completed within four weeks of receipt. If this is not possible, or the paper is not in the reviewer’s area of expertise, prompt notification to the journal coordinator will ensure that an alternative reviewer can be approached as soon as possible. It is not always easy to find suitable reviewers for specialist engineering papers and the recommendation of additional, competent reviewers is greatly appreciated.

Engineers Australia acknowledges the important role that reviewers play in the production of technical journals. Reviewers should note that the review of technical papers can count towards meeting your Continuing Professional Development requirements. For more details please see the website of Engineers Australia: www.engineersaustralia.org.au.