Peer Review Policy

The journal Mechanics and Advanced Technologies applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and originality of submitted manuscripts.

All manuscripts undergo double-blind review, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial office within 5–7 working days to ensure compliance with the journal scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards, including plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

The review process typically takes 2–4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, scientific quality, methodology, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

In case of conflicting reviewer opinions, an additional independent reviewer may be assigned.

Editorial Decision

The final decision on manuscript acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief or delegated editor based on the reviewers’ recommendations.

Possible decisions include:

• accept
• minor revision
• major revision
• reject

Revision Process

Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments.

Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.

The revised manuscript may be sent for re-evaluation.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be replaced.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential and are not shared outside the editorial process.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions within 30 days of notification.

Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial member who was not involved in the original decision. Additional expert opinions may be requested if necessary.

The decision on the appeal is final.

Handling Papers from Editorial Board Members

Editorial board members may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. This situation constitutes a potential conflict of interest.

To ensure transparency and impartiality, the following measures will be taken:

1. Editorial Independence
   During the peer review process, submitting editorial board members will not participate in the selection of reviewers or editorial decisions regarding their manuscript. The process will be overseen by a senior editor who is not in a conflict of interest and will act independently of the submitting editor. In some cases, an external expert editor may be assigned to handle the submission to further minimize potential bias.
2. Peer Review
   Submissions from editorial board members will undergo double-blind peer review. The submitting editors will not have access to any information about the review process beyond what is available to all authors.
3. External Reviewers
   At least three external, independent reviewers will be invited to evaluate the manuscript to ensure an objective assessment.
4. Editorial Treatment
   Manuscripts submitted by editorial board members will be treated in the same manner as all other submissions and may be subject to any editorial outcome, including rejection without review, requests for revision, or rejection after peer review.
5. Transparency Note
   If accepted, the published article will include a note indicating that the submission was handled according to the journal's policy for editorial board member manuscripts, with transparent procedures in place to avoid conflicts of interest.