Reviewing process

The peer-review process of Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research (SMEOR) is conducted in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the Editorial Office to determine whether they are properly prepared, comply with the journal's submission requirements and ethical policies, and contain all necessary documentation. Manuscripts that do not comply with the journal's ethical policies may be rejected before peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's technical or formatting requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further editorial assessment.

Following the initial checks, the Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor, or an appropriately appointed Editorial Board member will assess whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and has sufficient scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and potential contribution to warrant external peer review. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope of the journal or do not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards may be rejected without external peer review. Where appropriate, desk-rejection decisions may be reviewed or confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Board members, Editors, and Guest Editors may submit manuscripts to the journal. Such submissions will not receive preferential treatment and will be subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions. An Editor or Editorial Board member who is an author or otherwise has a conflict of interest concerning a manuscript will have no access to, or involvement in, the selection of the handling editor or reviewers, the peer-review process, or the editorial decision concerning that manuscript. An independent editor without a conflict of interest will be appointed to manage the manuscript. Where appropriate, the published article may include a statement describing the measures taken to ensure editorial independence and the integrity of the peer-review process.

Submitted manuscripts are screened using appropriate similarity-detection software. Similarity reports are used as an editorial screening tool and are not evaluated solely on the basis of an overall similarity percentage. Editors assess the nature, extent, and sources of textual overlap when determining whether inappropriate duplication, plagiarism, or other concerns may exist.

Editorial Workflow

Peer Review

Once a manuscript passes the initial editorial assessment, it will normally be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. SMEOR follows a double-blind peer-review process: the reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors, and the authors' identities are not disclosed to the reviewers.

Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscripts and associated files in a manner that does not reveal their identities to reviewers. Information that could unnecessarily identify the authors should be removed from the anonymized manuscript and other files provided for peer review.

Review reports, reviewer identities, manuscripts, and other materials associated with the peer-review process are confidential and must not be disclosed outside the editorial and peer-review process unless disclosure is required by law or expressly authorized by the parties concerned. Reviewer comments intended for the authors will be communicated to them through the editorial process.

The handling Editor is responsible for evaluating the reviewers' reports and making or recommending an editorial decision in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript, together with the reviewers' assessments and the journal's editorial and ethical requirements.

For regular submissions, assistant editors or handling editors will invite independent experts with appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. Reviewers may include members of the Editorial Board or Guest Editors where appropriate, provided that they have no conflict of interest concerning the manuscript.

For manuscripts submitted to a special issue, the Guest Editor may advise on the selection of reviewers and participate in the editorial process, provided that no conflict of interest exists. In all cases, reviewer selection and assignment must preserve the independence, confidentiality, and integrity of the double-blind peer-review process.

Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may be considered, but the journal is under no obligation to invite them. Suggested reviewers must be appropriately qualified and independent. Reviewers should not have published with any of the authors during the preceding five years, should not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors, and should not have personal, professional, financial, supervisory, collaborative, or other relationships that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, their impartiality.

All suggested reviewers are subject to the same independence, confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, and double-blind peer-review requirements as reviewers independently selected by the journal.

Reviewers must not request or recommend citations primarily for the purpose of increasing citations to their own publications, the work of close colleagues or associates, articles published in SMEOR, or publications in any other journal. Citation recommendations must be based solely on scholarly relevance and should be necessary to improve the accuracy, context, completeness, or scholarly quality of the manuscript. For further information, reviewers may consult the COPE guidance on citation requests by reviewers.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, figures, data, review materials, or other confidential submission content to publicly accessible or external generative AI or AI-assisted systems. Reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools to analyze, evaluate, summarize, or generate the substantive content of a peer-review report. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, reasoning, and recommendations contained in their reports. Any limited use of AI-assisted tools for language or readability improvement must comply with the journal's AI policy and must not involve uploading or otherwise disclosing confidential manuscript content.

Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, and appropriately substantiated assessments intended to assist the Editor in reaching an editorial decision and, where appropriate, to help authors improve their work. Personal, hostile, discriminatory, or derogatory comments will not be tolerated.

Reviewers must keep the manuscript and all associated information confidential. They must not attempt to identify the authors, contact the authors directly concerning the manuscript, or otherwise compromise the double-blind peer-review process. If a submitted review does not meet the journal's standards for quality, relevance, objectivity, or professional conduct, the reviewer may be asked to revise the report, or the report may be disregarded.

Editorial Decision and Revision

Research articles and review articles published in Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research (SMEOR) undergo double-blind peer review and normally receive at least two independent review reports before acceptance. Editorial materials, corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and other publication notices may follow different editorial procedures appropriate to the nature of the content.

Following peer review, the Editor will communicate one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication in principle, subject to satisfactory completion of relatively limited revisions. Authors are normally given seven days to submit the revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the comments.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revision before a final decision can be made. Authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers' and Editor's comments and may provide a reasoned rebuttal where they disagree with a requested revision. Authors are normally given thirty days to submit the revised manuscript. The revised version may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers where appropriate. More than one round of major revision may be conducted where the Editor considers further evaluation necessary.
• Reject and Encourage Resubmission: A manuscript requiring substantial additional analyses, experiments, validation, methodological development, evidence, or other major work may be rejected with an invitation to submit a substantially revised manuscript in the future. Any resubmitted manuscript will be treated as a new submission and will undergo a new editorial assessment and, where appropriate, a new double-blind peer-review process.
• Reject: The manuscript has scientific, methodological, ethical, editorial, or other substantive deficiencies that prevent it from being considered suitable for publication. The manuscript is rejected without an invitation to resubmit it in its current form.

Authors must address the reviewers' and Editor's comments in a point-by-point response. Where authors disagree with a requested revision or reviewer comment, they should provide a clear, scholarly, and reasoned explanation.

Authors must ensure that the revised manuscript, response letter, and other materials made available to reviewers do not unnecessarily disclose their identities. The double-blind nature of peer review will be maintained during subsequent review rounds.

Revision deadlines may be extended where justified. Authors requiring additional time should contact the Editorial Office before the applicable deadline and provide a brief explanation for the requested extension.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection decision by contacting the Editorial Office. An appeal must provide a detailed scholarly justification and should address the relevant reviewers' and/or Editor's comments point by point. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the editorial outcome, without substantive justification, may not be considered.

The Editor-in-Chief will arrange for the appeal and relevant manuscript documentation to be evaluated by an appropriate Editorial Board member who was not involved in the original editorial decision and has no conflict of interest concerning the manuscript. If no suitable Editorial Board member is available, an independent external expert may be appointed.

The individual considering the appeal will provide an advisory recommendation and may recommend that the original decision be upheld, that the manuscript undergo further peer review, or that another appropriate editorial action be taken. Where further peer review is required, the double-blind peer-review process will be maintained. A rejection decision confirmed following completion of the appeal procedure is final.

For manuscripts submitted to a special issue, the Editor-in-Chief may consider the appeal provided that they were not involved in the original decision and have no conflict of interest. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest or was involved in the original decision, an independent Editorial Board member or suitable external expert will be appointed to consider the appeal.

Appeals and complaints concerning the peer-review or editorial process will be handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).