Peer Review Process

The Mechanics and Advanced Technologies journal applies a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. 

All manuscripts received by the editorial office are checked regarding the purpose, subject, and policy of the journal (as per the Author Guidelines). 

Manuscripts of articles that do not meet the journal's requirements for structure and design are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. 

Manuscripts of articles in which, after checking for plagiarism in StrikePlagiarism.com, a significant percentage of textual borrowings are found, are returned to the authors for revision. If signs of plagiarism are detected, the article will be returned to the author without the right to resubmit this article.

Peer Review Assignment

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are sent for double-blind peer review to two independent experts in the relevant field. Identities of both reviewers and authors are kept confidential throughout the process.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within 4–6 weeks of receiving the manuscript. Extensions may be granted upon request.

Reviewers must promptly notify the editor of any potential conflicts of interest  ( see the Conflict of Interest Policy for Reviewers). They are also required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript content. Reviewers must not use or reproduce the material (in whole or in part) or disclose any information about the manuscript or the request for review.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following:

  • Scientific originality and relevance;
  • Methodological rigor;
  • Quality of analysis and interpretation;
  • Clarity of presentation;
  • Compliance with ethical standards.

A standardized review form with 10 evaluation criteria is used. Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Acceptance;
  • Acceptance with minor revisions;
  • Major revisions;
  • Rejection.

If the manuscript is recommended for revision, it is returned to the author(s) along with the reviewers’ comments and editorial suggestions for improvement.

Authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. All changes in the manuscript must be clearly highlighted, and a cover letter should be included explaining how the manuscript has been revised.

Authors are required to respond to reviewers’ comments within three weeks of receiving feedback. If additional time is needed (e.g., due to extensive revisions), a request should be submitted to the Managing Editor. Failure to respond within the specified timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from further consideration.

Decision Making

The editorial board makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations. In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be invited.

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the original reviewers where applicable. Manuscripts requiring major changes may undergo a second round of review.

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 two 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.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their objectivity. If such conflicts exist, the individual must withdraw from the review process (see the Conflict of Interest Policy for Reviewers).

Confidentiality and Ethics

All manuscripts under review are considered confidential documents. Reviewers must not use information from the manuscript for personal advantage or share it with third parties.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions or report concerns about the review process by contacting the editorial office. All appeals will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with COPE guidelines.