All submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Board will be checked by the Editor-in-chief to define the topic of the manuscripts and to appoint two reviewers.
All articles are being reviewed.
The manuscripts submitted to the editorial board, after preliminary examination, undergo a single-blind peer review process to assess their compliance with the subject matter and requirements of the journal.
On the basis of the received reviews, the Editor-in-Chief decides after discussion with the Editorial Board whether to accept the manuscript for publication without revising, or the authors have the opportunity to revise the manuscript, taking into account the comments of the reviewers, and re-submit it. The decision taken is brought to the attention of the author indicated as the contact person.
Review process
The original manuscript is registered when the editorial office receives it by e-mail (registration date).
The manuscript is undergoing initial proofreading. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared are returned to authors for revision and resubmission. Manuscripts that do not fit the Journal of Mechanical Engineering – Problemy Mashynobuduvannia policy or do not meet the standards of the Journal will be rejected before peer-review.
After these checks, the Editor-in-chief will consult the Editorial Board to determine whether the manuscript fits the scope of the Journal and whether it is scientifically sound. No judgment on the potential impact of the work will be made at this stage. Reject decisions at this stage will be verified by the Editorial Board.
The editor-in-chief of the Journal or their deputy decide on the choice of reviewers according to the subject of the manuscript. Editor-in-chief may invite experts, including recommendations by Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors. The manuscript will be assigned to two independent reviewers. A single-blind review is applied.
The materials of the manuscript are transmitted to the designated reviewers for the review to be performed. The result of the manuscript review is presented in the form of reviews. Peer review comments are confidential.
Editorial Decision and Revision
The Reviewer will communicate the decision of the Editorial Board, which will be one of the following:
– Accept after Minor Revisions – the paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given two weeks for minor revisions;
– Reconsider after Major Revisions – the acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a suitable time frame, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, we will recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.;
– Reject and Encourage Resubmission – if additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted;
– Reject – the article has serious flaws, and/or makes no original significant contribution. No offer of resubmission to the journal is provided.
All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.
Reject decisions will be verified by the Editorial Board.
The Editor-in-Chief after discussion with the Editorial Board makes a decision on the publication of an article, which is brought to the attention of the authors.
In case of a positive decision, the manuscript is transmitted to the editorial office to start preparations for publication.
In case of necessity to revise the manuscript, the reviews along with all the comments and wishes of the reviewers (without mentioning their surnames and contacts) are sent to the author.
In the case of rejection of the manuscript, a motivated notification is sent to the author, ensuring the anonymity of the reviewers.
In case of disagreement with the review, the author may send a motivated answer to the Editorial Board.
After they make corrections in the electronic version of the manuscript, taking into account the reviewers’ and editor’s comments, the authors re-submit the electronic version of the manuscript to the editorial office.
The revised version of the manuscript is then sent for re-reviewing.
Author Appeals
Authors may appeal a rejection by sending email to the Editorial Board. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or Editor’s comments. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and should be submitted within ten days from the decision date. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and should be submitted within ten days from the decision date. The Editor-in-chief will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to a designated Editorial Board Member. The Editor being consulted will be asked to provide an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. This decision will then be validated by the Editorial Board. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.
Recommendation for publication
Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo professional copy-editing, English editing, production of an original model, proofreading by the authors.