Peer Review Policy
The journal intends to use a fair, confidential, and documented peer-review process to evaluate originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and clarity. The final review model must be formally adopted and consistently implemented before submissions open.
Initial Editorial Screening
Editors check scope, completeness, originality, ethical declarations, references, and suitability for external review.
Similarity Assessment
Submissions may be screened for text overlap. The proposed general similarity threshold is ≤20%, interpreted alongside the actual report and context.
Independent Review
Suitable manuscripts are sent to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and no known conflicts of interest. The journal must state whether review is single-anonymous, double-anonymous, or another model.
Editorial Decision
Editors consider the reviews and the manuscript and record a reasoned decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
Revision and Reassessment
Authors respond to comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers or assessed by the editor as appropriate.
Final Checks and Publication
Accepted papers undergo final checks for metadata, references, declarations, figures, and proof corrections before publication.
Review Criteria
- Originality and significance of the contribution.
- Correctness of mathematical arguments, methods, data, or engineering analysis.
- Engagement with relevant literature and appropriate citation.
- Clarity of presentation, reproducibility, and adequate discussion of limitations.
- Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers should treat manuscripts and review reports as confidential. Anyone with a conflict of interest should disclose it and recuse themselves where appropriate. Reviewer identities will be handled according to the review model stated by the journal.
Similarity and Plagiarism
The proposed general similarity threshold is ≤20%. Similarity reports must be interpreted carefully: legitimate references or standard phrases may create matches, while serious unattributed copying can be unacceptable at any percentage. Editors must assess the substance and source of overlap rather than relying only on a single score.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal or complaint to the editorial office. Appeals should identify a possible factual error, procedural irregularity, or misunderstanding; disagreement with a scholarly judgment alone may not justify reversal. Complaints should be reviewed impartially and documented.