Peer Review Policy

JCARME follows a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the articles published in the journal. All manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the submitted work.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to JCARME are first examined by the editorial office to determine whether they meet the basic requirements of the journal, including the journal's scope, format, ethical requirements, and minimum standards of scientific quality.

At this stage, manuscripts may also be screened for plagiarism or substantial overlap with previously published material.

Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, do not meet the basic submission requirements, or have substantial deficiencies may be rejected without being sent for external review.

2. Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate Associate Editor according to the subject area of the manuscript.

The handling editor is responsible for overseeing the review process and making an editorial recommendation based on the reviewers' comments and the scientific merits of the manuscript.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who have appropriate expertise in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected based on their scientific expertise, research experience, and familiarity with the subject of the manuscript. The journal attempts to avoid selecting reviewers who have a personal, professional, or institutional conflict of interest with the authors.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission; however, the final selection of reviewers is entirely at the discretion of the journal.

4.Type of Peer Review

JCARME uses a single-blind peer-review process. Under this system, the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, while the reviewers may have access to the identities of the authors.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently and to provide constructive comments that can assist the authors in improving their work.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are normally asked to consider the following aspects of a manuscript:

Originality and novelty of the research;

Relevance to the scope of JCARME;

Scientific and technical quality;

Soundness of the methodology and analysis;

Validity and clarity of the results;

Adequacy of the discussion and interpretation;

Relevance and adequacy of the references;

Clarity and organization of the manuscript;

Quality and presentation of figures, tables, and equations; and

Overall contribution to the field of mechanical engineering.

Reviewers may also identify methodological limitations, unsupported conclusions, inappropriate citations, ethical concerns, or other issues that may affect the reliability of the work.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are normally asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept;

Minor revision;

Major revision; or

Reject.

The recommendation provided by a reviewer is advisory and does not, by itself, determine the final editorial decision.

7. Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on the reviewers' reports, the quality of the manuscript, and the overall editorial assessment.

Possible decisions include:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no further substantive revision.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.

Major Revision: Substantial changes are required and the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the scientific, technical, ethical, or editorial standards required for publication.

The journal may request additional reviews when the reviewers' recommendations are substantially different or when specialist expertise is required.

8. Revision of Manuscripts

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised version within the period specified by the editorial office.

Authors are expected to provide a detailed response to the reviewers' comments and clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript. When an author disagrees with a reviewer's comment, a clear scientific justification should be provided in the response.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

9. Reviewer Confidentiality and Conduct

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and information obtained during the review process as confidential. They must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers should not allow personal, financial, professional, or institutional interests to influence their assessment. If a potential conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should inform the editorial office and decline the review when appropriate.

Reviewer reports should be professional, objective, and supported by clear scientific reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is not considered appropriate.

10. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any circumstances that could compromise their impartiality in handling or reviewing a manuscript.

An editor should not handle a manuscript when there is a significant conflict of interest, including a close personal or professional relationship with one or more of the authors, a recent collaboration, or a direct institutional conflict.

In such cases, the manuscript will be assigned to another qualified editor.

11. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made as a result of a significant error in the review or editorial process may appeal the decision by contacting the editorial office.

An appeal should provide a clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration and should address specific scientific or procedural issues. Appeals that simply disagree with the reviewers' opinions without providing substantive justification may not lead to reconsideration.

Appeals will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate independent member of the editorial team. The decision following an appeal will normally be final.

12. Ethical Concerns During Peer Review

If reviewers or editors identify potential concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate authorship, conflicts of interest, or other forms of research misconduct, the journal may suspend the review process while the matter is investigated.

Where appropriate, the journal may request clarification or supporting information from the authors and may contact the authors' affiliated institution or other relevant authority.

13. Timeliness of Review

JCARME aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and independence of peer review. Reviewers are requested to complete their assessments within the period specified by the editorial office.

If a reviewer is unable to complete a review within the requested time, the journal may appoint an alternative reviewer in order to avoid unnecessary delays.

14. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the submitted work. Editorial decisions are not influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal characteristics, or commercial considerations.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of a manuscript based on the recommendation of a particular reviewer, and no individual reviewer is solely responsible for an editorial decision.

15. Post-Publication Review

Peer review does not end the journal's responsibility for the integrity of the published record. If substantive concerns about a published article are subsequently brought to the attention of the journal, the editorial team will assess the concerns and, when necessary, take appropriate action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

Such action may include publication of a correction, editorial notice, or retraction, depending on the nature and significance of the issue.

JCARME is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, and scientifically rigorous peer-review process and to ensuring that all manuscripts are handled according to consistent editorial standards.