Peer Review Process

The journal “Academic Journal. Industrial Machine Building, Civil Engineering” applies a double-blind peer review procedure, which ensures mutual anonymity of authors and reviewers. This approach guarantees objectivity, impartiality, and independence in the evaluation of scientific manuscripts.

Peer review is a mandatory stage of the editorial process, aimed at selecting high-quality scientific publications, improving their academic level, and enhancing the content of articles. The procedure is carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and international standards of publication ethics.

General Principles of Peer Review

Peer review is conducted based on the following principles:

  • objectivity and scientific validity;
  • independence of expert judgment;
  • confidentiality of submitted materials;
  • non-discrimination;
  • responsibility of all participants in the process.

Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific quality, originality, reliability of results, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

The editorial process includes several sequential stages:

At the first stage, an initial editorial screening is conducted to assess the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with formal requirements, and the absence of plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without peer review.

At the second stage, the editorial office appoints independent reviewers (usually at least two) with appropriate academic qualifications and expertise in the relevant field.

This is followed by a double-blind review, where neither the authors nor the reviewers disclose their identities.

Reviewers prepare expert reports evaluating:

  • relevance and originality of the research;
  • methodological soundness;
  • reliability of results;
  • clarity of presentation and validity of conclusions;
  • compliance with ethical standards.

Based on the reviews, the editorial office makes one of the following decisions: accept, accept with revisions, request resubmission for further review, or reject.

Revision and Re-Review

If necessary, authors receive reviewers’ comments for revision. Authors are expected to address the comments or provide a reasoned response in case of disagreement.

In complex or disputed cases, the manuscript may be sent for additional or arbitration review involving an extra independent expert.

Special Cases in Peer Review

The journal applies specific procedures in cases where there is a risk of conflict of interest or compromised independence of evaluation.

This applies, in particular, to manuscripts submitted by:

  • the editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board;
  • staff of the journal’s founding institution;
  • individuals with professional or personal relationships with editors or reviewers.

In such cases:

  • the involved individual is fully excluded from the review process;
  • an independent handling editor is appointed;
  • external independent reviewers are engaged;
  • full transparency and documentation of the process are ensured.

If reviewer opinions differ significantly, a third (arbitration) reviewer is appointed.

The editorial office also considers the risks of excessive concentration of publications from particular institutions and ensures diversity in authorship.

Conflict of Interest in the Review Process

The journal requires mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest by all participants.

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial factors that may influence the research results. This information is published in the article.

Reviewers must decline participation if:

  • they have professional or personal relationships with the authors;
  • they are involved in direct scientific competition or collaboration;
  • any other factors may compromise objectivity.

Editors must recuse themselves from handling a manuscript in case of a conflict of interest and assign it to an independent editor.

All decisions regarding conflict of interest management are documented.

Confidentiality

All submitted materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not use or disclose any information prior to publication.

Peer Review Timeline

The editorial office strives to balance quality and efficiency in manuscript processing:

  • typical review period: 2–3 weeks;
  • average time to first decision: 4–6 weeks;
  • the total review time may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the number of review rounds.