Review Process

Tanzania Journal of Engineering and Technology (Tanz. J. Engrg. Technol.) uses a double-blind peer review system in which both the reviewer and author identities are not made available to the other party throughout the review process. The Journal uses Open Journal Systems (OJS), which is open source journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and freely distributed by the Public Knowledge Project under the GNU General Public License.


Review Process

ISSN 1821-536X (print)

ISSN 2619-8789 (electronic)


1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding author may submit the article through an online system or by e-mail.


2. Editorial Office Assessment

The Journal editorial office checks plagiarism and the paper format against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure that it includes the required Journal format. The
Editor-in-Chief may check the originality and contents to confirm if it is appropriate for the journal. The Editor-in-Chief may reject paper at this stage without being sent for review.

3. Assignment of Manuscript to Subject Editors

The Editor-in-Chief may assign manuscript to Subject Editors who will handle the peer review process.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The subject editor sends invitations to appropriate individuals who are competent in the area covered in the manuscript. Potential reviewers may consider the invitation against their own expertise, availability and conflicts of interest and may accept or decline invitation. Each manuscript must be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Depending on the responses received, the Editor-in-Chief or Subject Editor may request additional reviewers to review the manuscript.

5. Review is conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the manuscript, which is then followed by providing comments on the manuscript. The review is then submitted to the journal, with the recommendation to accept the manuscript as is, accept subject to minor corrections, accept subject to major corrections or reject the manuscript.

6. Evaluation of the Reviews

The subject editor or Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. In the event the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get another independent opinion before making a decision.

7. Communication of the Decision

The editor sends a decision e-mail to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the manuscript is send back article for either major or minor revisions, the editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript. Manuscripts that require major revisions will be send back to the after contributors have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with reviewers' comments. Manuscripts that require only minor changes may be handled by the subject editor. The corresponding authors of manuscripts that have been rejected will be informed accordingly.