Peer Review Model
Rigorous, constructive, efficient
50 days is the average time from submission to final decision
IJMECS operates a double-blind external peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. The handling editor and authorized editorial staff may access author information solely for the purpose of managing the editorial process.
All communication between authors and reviewers is conducted through the Manuscript Tracking System (MTS) and remains anonymized. Reviewer identities remain confidential after publication unless a reviewer has expressly consented to disclosure under a separately approved open-review arrangement.
Scope of Peer Review
All primary research articles and review articles that pass editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers before an editorial decision is made. Editorials, corrections, retraction notices, and other non-research content may be subject to editorial review rather than external peer review; the review method used for such content will be clearly identified.
Special-issue manuscripts, invited manuscripts, and manuscripts submitted by editors or Editorial Board members are subject to the same quality, independence, and external peer-review requirements as regular submissions.
Anonymity Requirements
Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript without names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, funding information, or other identifying details. Identifying information must be provided on a separate title page. The editorial office checks submitted files and metadata before external review and may return inadequately anonymized files to the authors.
Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors. Authors must not attempt to identify or contact reviewers. Editors and editorial staff must protect the confidentiality of both parties throughout and after the review process.
Editorial Screening
After submission, the editorial office conducts technical and integrity checks. A qualified academic editor then evaluates whether the manuscript:
(1) falls within the journal's aims and scope;
(2) presents a clear and relevant research question;
(3) meets basic standards of originality, methodology, presentation, and reporting;
(4) contains the ethical approvals and declarations required for the research;
(5) is sufficiently anonymized for double-blind review; and
(6) complies with the journal's authorship, conflict-of-interest, data, and publication policies.
A manuscript may be rejected without external review if it is outside the journal's scope, lacks the minimum scholarly or methodological standard required for review, duplicates previously published work, violates ethical requirements, or does not comply with journal policies. A desk-rejection decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Associate Editor. Administrative staff do not make academic acceptance or rejection decisions.
Assignment of the Handling Editor
A manuscript that passes editorial screening is assigned to a handling editor with appropriate subject expertise. Before accepting the assignment, the editor must disclose any personal, institutional, professional, or financial conflict of interest. An editor with a conflict must decline the assignment, and another qualified editor will be appointed.
The handling editor selects reviewers, supervises the review and revision process, evaluates the reports and authors' responses, and submits an editorial recommendation. The handling editor does not act as one of the two required external reviewers.
External Peer Review Requirement
A primary research article or review article cannot be accepted unless at least two independent external reviewers have submitted substantive review reports.
External reviewers must not be current members of the IJMECS Editorial Board or employees of MECS Press. They must be independent of the authors and free from personal, institutional, professional, and financial conflicts of interest.
Editorial Board members oversee the editorial process but do not replace the two external reviewers required for research and review articles. An Editorial Board member may provide supplementary specialist or integrity advice when necessary, but such advice does not substitute for an external review report.
Reviewer Eligibility and Independence
An independent external reviewer should:
(1) have demonstrated expertise and a relevant publication record in the subject of the manuscript;
(2) not be a current member of the IJMECS Editorial Board;
(3) not be employed by MECS Press;
(4) not be affiliated with the same institution as any author;
(5) not be a recent supervisor, student, close collaborator, or co-author of any author;
(6) not have a financial, personal, or professional interest that could influence the review;
(7) be able to provide a timely, substantive, and evidence-based report; and
(8) agree to maintain manuscript confidentiality.
Reviewers should not normally have co-authored a publication with any author during the preceding three years. Editors may apply a longer period where necessary to protect review independence.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected by the handling editor on the basis of expertise, publication record, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial office may verify a reviewer's identity using an institutional profile, institutional email address, ORCID record, Web of Science Researcher Profile, or other reliable academic source.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to invite them. Suggested reviewers must satisfy the same expertise, independence, identity-verification, and conflict-of-interest requirements as all other reviewers. Authors must not suggest recent collaborators, colleagues from the same institution, supervisors, students, relatives, or anyone whose impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
The journal does not use reviewers whose identity cannot be reliably verified. Editors and staff monitor for fabricated reviewer identities, peer-review rings, compromised email accounts, and other forms of peer-review manipulation.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must:
(1) evaluate only manuscripts for which they have appropriate expertise;
(2) disclose conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment;
(3) treat the manuscript and review correspondence as confidential;
(4) provide an objective, constructive, and sufficiently detailed report;
(5) evaluate originality, methodology, data, analysis, interpretation, reporting quality, and ethical compliance;
(6) identify relevant work that has not been appropriately cited without requesting unnecessary citation of their own or the journal's publications;
(7) avoid personal, discriminatory, hostile, or defamatory comments;
(8) report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical research, or peer-review manipulation to the editor; and
(9) not upload the manuscript or confidential review material to a generative-AI system or other third-party service that does not guarantee confidentiality.
Independent Review Phase
Reviewers assess the anonymized manuscript independently and submit their reports through MTS. Reviewers are normally requested to return a report within 14 days of accepting an invitation, although additional time may be granted where necessary to ensure a careful evaluation.
A valid review report must provide a substantive assessment of the manuscript and the reasoning supporting its recommendation. A brief statement such as "Accept" without an adequate evaluation does not count as one of the required external reports.
Reviewer recommendations are:
- Accept;
- Minor revision;
- Major revision; or
- Reject.
Revision and Anonymized Communication
Once the required reports have been received and assessed, anonymized reviewer comments are released to the authors through MTS. Authors must submit a revised anonymized manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where they disagree, providing a clear scholarly justification.
All author-reviewer communication remains within MTS and is overseen by the handling editor. Direct contact between authors and reviewers is not permitted.
Major revisions are normally returned to the original external reviewers. If an original reviewer is unavailable, another qualified independent external reviewer may be appointed. Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor when the external reports clearly identify the changes required.
Conflicting Reports and Additional Review
When external reviewers provide materially conflicting recommendations, the handling editor must assess the reasons given and may invite a third independent external reviewer. No reviewer report may be disregarded without a documented academic reason.
An Editorial Board member cannot be appointed as the third external reviewer. Additional external review may also be requested when the editor lacks sufficient evidence to make a reliable recommendation or when a specialist methodological or ethical issue arises.
Editorial Decisions
Reviewers make recommendations; they do not make publication decisions. The handling editor evaluates the manuscript, the external review reports, the authors' responses, and any integrity checks and submits a recommendation.
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Associate Editor who has no conflict of interest with the manuscript. Final decisions are based on academic quality, validity, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and the adequacy of the peer-review process.
MECS Press supports the journal's administrative, technical, production, and research-integrity operations but does not interfere with academic editorial decisions. Fees, subscriptions, sponsorship, institutional relationships, and other commercial considerations have no influence on reviewer selection or editorial decisions.
Acceptance requires:
(1) at least two substantive reports from eligible independent external reviewers;
(2) satisfactory responses to material reviewer and editor concerns;
(3) compliance with the journal's ethical and reporting requirements; and
(4) final approval by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Associate Editor.
Research-Integrity and Technical Validation
Before and after external review, editorial staff may perform plagiarism screening, image and data checks, authorship and conflict-of-interest verification, ethics-document checks, and other integrity or technical assessments. If a concern is identified, publication may be paused while the issue is investigated.
Research-integrity staff may recommend rejection or further investigation on defined ethical grounds, but they do not accept manuscripts. The final academic decision remains with an unconflicted qualified journal editor.
Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by editors or Editorial Board members are handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the author. The submitting editor or Board member is excluded from reviewer selection, access to reviewer identities, editorial discussion, and the final decision.
Such manuscripts undergo the same double-blind external peer-review process as all other research and review articles and require at least two independent external review reports.
Special Issues
Special-issue manuscripts follow the same double-blind external peer-review requirements as regular manuscripts. Guest Editors may manage manuscripts only where they have no conflict of interest. They cannot review manuscripts that they manage and cannot make the final acceptance decision. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent Associate Editor retains oversight and makes the final decision.
Appeals
Authors may appeal a rejection when they believe that a material factual or procedural error affected the decision. An appeal must identify the manuscript, explain the grounds clearly, and provide relevant evidence. Mere disagreement with reviewers' academic judgment is not sufficient.
An appeal is considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not involved in the original decision and has no conflict of interest. An additional independent expert may be consulted. An appeal does not guarantee that peer review will be reopened or that the decision will change.
Complaints about publication ethics, reviewer conduct, editorial conduct, or peer-review integrity may be sent confidentially to integrity@mecs-press.org.
Record Keeping and Quality Assurance
The journal retains records of reviewer identities, affiliations, invitations, conflict-of-interest declarations, reports, revisions, author responses, editorial recommendations, and final decisions. The editorial office periodically audits completed files to verify that the journal's external peer-review and independence requirements have been followed.
Questions about the peer-review process may be sent to ijmecs@mecs-press.org.