Science Journal
MECHANICS AND MATHEMATICAL METHODS

Peer Review of Articles

All submitted manuscripts undergo initial screening followed by independent double-anonymized peer review.

Screening of manuscripts for signs of academic plagiarism is mandatory.

The decision on acceptance of a manuscript for publication is made taking into account scientific quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the scope of the journal.

The editorial board of the journal applies a double-anonymized review procedure, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other at all stages of the expert evaluation of the manuscript. In accordance with ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023, the peer review model used in the journal is defined as independent, without publication of peer review reports. This approach ensures objectivity, impartiality, and a high level of scientific quality of publications.

After the initial check for compliance of the manuscript with the thematic profile of the journal, the article is sent for review to at least two independent reviewers who possess appropriate scientific qualifications, research experience in the relevant field, and are not in a conflict of interest with the authors.

In the case of submission of a manuscript by a member of the editorial board or the Editor-in-Chief, an independent handling editor is appointed who fully manages the peer review process independently of the author, which excludes the possibility of influencing the decision.

In case a situation is identified where a reviewer requires the author to cite their own works without proper scientific justification, the author has the right to officially inform the Editorial Board about such requirements. After that, the Editor-in-Chief (or the independent handling editor) conducts an examination of the reviewer’s requirements.

If manipulation is confirmed, such a review is annulled, the article is sent to a new reviewer, and cooperation with the violator is terminated.

Criteria for Selecting Reviewers

Reviewers are selected taking into account:

• scientific competence and publication activity;
• experience in reviewing scientific works;
• absence of conflict of interest;
• adherence to the principles of academic integrity and confidentiality.

Peer Review Process and Decision-Making

The Chair of the Editorial Board (or the appointed independent handling editor) reviews the received reports and makes the final editorial decision. In case of significant discrepancies between reviewers’ conclusions, the manuscript will be sent to a third independent reviewer for additional expert evaluation.

Based on the results of peer review, the following decisions are possible:

• accept the article for publication;
• send the article for revision;
• reject the article.

Notification of the peer review results and the decision of the editorial board is sent to the author.

Revision of the Manuscript

In the case of rejection or the need for revision, the author receives reasoned comments from reviewers and recommendations for improving the quality of the article. After revisions are made, the revised manuscript is resubmitted to the reviewer for evaluation of how the comments have been addressed. Minor revisions may be verified by the Editor-in-Chief (or the appointed independent handling editor).

Review and Decision Timeframes

The editorial board aims to ensure prompt processing of submissions. Notification of the results of the initial check is sent to the author within 3–5 working days. The first editorial decision based on scientific peer review is provided on average within 5–6 weeks. The time allowed for authors to revise the manuscript is 14 days.

The average time for a manuscript to complete the full cycle of expert evaluation within the double-anonymized peer review procedure is up to 3 months.