All manuscripts published in the Journal “Mechanics of Composite Materials and Constructions” (hereinafter the “Journal”) required to undergo single-blind peer review process defined as “obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field of publication”.
Reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed material and have for the last 3 years the publications on the subject of peer-reviewed articles. Reviewers are appointed from among the members of the editorial board, employees IAM RAS, other professionals, usually doctorates, professors.
Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.
Head of the editorial board/executive secretary determines if the peer-reviewed paper matches the profile of the Journal and the requirement for typography.
Selection of the reviewers for each manuscript made at the meetings of the editorial board.
The duration of the review is not more than 3 months from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the reviewer.
The reviewer should analyze:
The conformity of the manuscript content to the research topics of the Journal.
The relevance and novelty of the content of the manuscript.
The reliability and validity of the results described in the manuscript.
The scientific level of the manuscript.
The advantages and disadvantages of the manuscript, both in form and content.
The reviewer is obliged:
To place its review at the Editorial Board disposal in no more than 3 (three) months after the receipt of the manuscript.
To secure the scientific level of reviewing sufficient for the award decision about publication, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.
To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript or its any part.
To alert the Editor immediately to any submitted or published content that is substantially similar to that under review.
To be aware of any real or potential conflicts of interest (financial, collaborative, institutional, or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the Editor immediately to these withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
The reviewer should assess not only the creative part of the manuscript but also the review part of the manuscript as well as its completeness and objectivity. If necessary, the reviewer may offer the authors of the manuscript to widen the paper overview and/or a list of references in order to better define a position of this work among other known studies on the same subject.
The review ends with the conclusion about the possibility or impossibility of the publication of the manuscript in the Journal as in the presented view or after author’s revision.
A request for the revision of the manuscript does not mean it mandatory publication after processing.
The ready-review (positive or negative) is sent to the authors for the response to the comments and (or) making corrections to the manuscript in accordance with the comments made by the Reviewer.
The answer to the review and the revised version of the manuscript without fail is directed to the reviewer for the final conclusion about the possibility of publication of the manuscript in the Journal or its rejection.
The final decision about the publication or rejection of the manuscript is accepted by the Editorial Board.
In the case of a decision to reject the manuscript the reasoned refusal is sent to the author.
In case of controversial cases or in the accordance with the recommendations of the members of the Editorial Board of the manuscript is sent for re-review.
The Editorial Board rejects submitted papers if the authors did not prepare the text accordingly to the aforementioned Rules (URL) despite the suggestions received from the Editorial Board.
The Editorial Board agrees to send copies of reviews in the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation on admission the corresponding request.