Peer Review Process
The "Theory and practice of metallurgy" journal adheres to a double-blind peer review policy. The editorial process consists of two stages: manuscript screening and peer review.
Stage 1: Manuscript Screening
All submitted manuscripts received by the editorial office will be screened by the Editors to determine if the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and ethical policy, is scientifically sound, and is properly prepared.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's standards or ethical policy will be rejected before peer review.
At this stage, the originality of the manuscript texts will also be checked using Turnitin (and other specialised software).
Stage 2: Peer Review
Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a Double-Blind Review process, where neither the author(s) nor the reviewer know each other's identities, and their communication occurs anonymously through the journal's editorial office.
A reviewer of the manuscript must be a specialist with the appropriate qualifications and experience in the same or a related field of knowledge as the submitted work. The reviewer must hold a scientific degree. Their research profile should align as closely as possible with the subject matter of the article. The reviewer is required to have at least three publications in the relevant field within the last 3–5 years, published in professional scientific journals of Category "A" and/or "B," and/or in publications indexed in the Scopus or Web of Science Core Collection.
A reviewer cannot be an author or co-author of the reviewed work, a scientific supervisor, or an employee of the organization where the author works.
Each manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers. Each reviewer is given up to 30 days to review the manuscript. The total duration of the peer review process (including the time taken by editors to select reviewers) should not exceed 60 days.
If the editor has reasonable suspicion of a reviewer violating ethical principles/norms, the recommendations of such a reviewer will be disregarded by the journal's editorial board, and another reviewer will be engaged for the manuscript's review.
Each reviewer submits a review to the editorial office based on their work, which includes an analysis of the manuscript according to the following criteria:
- Relevance of the scientific article's topic;
- Scientific novelty of the research direction;
- Problem/task statement and the significance of the obtained results for the further development of theory and practice in the given field of knowledge;
- Sufficiency of research material;
- Correspondence of conclusions to the research's aim and objectives;
- Quality of source processing and relevance of references cited in the manuscript;
- Quality of article formatting: style, terminology, phrasing.
The concluding part of the review must contain reasoned conclusions and a clear recommendation:
- To reject the manuscript for publication;
- To revise the manuscript;
- The manuscript requires minor changes;
- To accept the manuscript without changes.
These recommendations with corresponding comments of the reviewer are sent to the author responsible for correspondence with the journal and are considered by the editor for a decision regarding the article's publication.
If one reviewer provides a negative review recommending the editorial board to reject the manuscript, while the second reviewer holds a different opinion, a third reviewer will be additionally engaged to review the article.
The review period for the manuscript by the third reviewer is up to 15 days.
If two out of three reviewers give a negative assessment of the manuscript and recommend rejecting its publication, the manuscript is withdrawn from further consideration, and the authors are notified.
If a reviewer indicates the need for manuscript revision or minor changes to the text, the reviewer's comments and recommendations are sent to the corresponding author via email. The author(s) are given 15 days from the moment of notification to revise the manuscript.
Upon receiving the reviewer's recommendations and comments, the author(s) take them into account and revise or rework the article, or send a reasoned refusal to accept the reviewer's recommendations (comments).
The revision process may be repeated until the editor makes a reasoned decision to recommend the article for publication. An exception is deliberate and repeated ignoring of reviewer and editor recommendations more than twice. In such a case, the article is withdrawn from consideration, and the authors are informed.
Articles that have undergone significant revision must be re-checked for compliance with publication integrity and ethical policies and undergo re-review, with a deadline of up to 15 days.
After all the above-mentioned procedures, the author(s) of the article will receive one of the editor's recommendations:
1) Recommend the manuscript for publication.
2) Recommend rejecting the manuscript for publication with reasons for such a decision.
Reasons for rejection may include:
- Lack of scientific novelty or its insignificance;
- The article does not align with the journal's aims and specialization;
- The submitted manuscript does not comply with publication ethics or formatting requirements;
- Authors manipulate citations and/or references to primary sources;
- Complete or partial disregard of reviewer/editor comments and the absence of corresponding corrections in the manuscript;
- Unjustified changes to author names, adding or removing individuals from the author list, or changing their affiliation during the manuscript editing process;
- The manuscript text has unconstructive or emotional content, is unfounded, misleads the reader, or constitutes manipulation or defamation;
- The manuscript text discloses confidential information of individuals or legal entities without proper consent.
The final decision regarding manuscript publication is made by the journal's editorial board. The decision of the editorial board is communicated to the authors.
In the case where the author(s) of a manuscript submitted for publication is one or more editors of the journal "Theory and Practice of Metallurgy", both stages of the editorial process (initial manuscript screening and peer review) shall be carried out by another member of the Editorial board (Editor) who was not involved in the research which results are presented for publication, and who did not take part in the writing, editing, or preliminary discussion of the manuscript. The authors (journal Editors) must declare the existing conflict of interest in the manuscript.
The review of a manuscript authored by journal Editors and the results of its peer review shall be conducted at a meeting of the Editorial board, and the decision on its publication shall be made by a majority vote of the members of the Editorial board. The authors of the manuscript shall not participate in the voting.
Manuscripts authored by more than three members of the journal's Editorial board shall not be accepted for review and shall not be published in the journal.
