Review Process

The Scientific Technical Journal «Metal Science and Treatment of Metals» uses double-blind peer review to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and adherence to high academic standards of publication ethics. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

1. Initial stage and fixation of the received date

Authors submit their manuscripts to the editorial office. The received date is the day the editorial office receives a correctly formatted manuscript that meets the journal's requirements. This date is recorded in the article's metadata and indicated in the final publication.

The manuscript is then assessed by the editor-in-chief for compliance with the journal's scope and formatting requirements, and undergoes a plagiarism check. Manuscripts that do not meet basic quality and ethical criteria may be rejected without being sent for review within 5 working days.

2. Appointment of reviewers

If no violations are found, the editor-in-chief (or executive editor) selects at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions. A reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the work, nor the supervisor of a degree candidate, nor an employee of the same department where the author works.

3. Anonymization and submission for review

Before sending to reviewers, all information that could identify the authors (names, affiliation, acknowledgements, references to own works in the text, etc.) is removed from the manuscript file. Reviewers receive an anonymised file of the manuscript.

4. Evaluation criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • scientific validity and reliability of the results;

  • relevance to the journal's scope;

  • originality and novelty;

  • research methodology;

  • structure, style, and quality of presentation;

  • correctness of references and citations.

5. Review timelines

Reviewers are expected to provide their review within 2–3 weeks after receiving the manuscript.

If a reviewer cannot meet this deadline, they must immediately notify the editorial office. The deadline may then be extended to 4 weeks or another reviewer may be appointed.

The total duration of the review process (from sending to reviewers until receipt of both reviews) does not exceed 6 weeks.

6. Forms of documentation and decision-making

Reviewers provide a written review that includes:

  • a general conclusion on the quality of the manuscript;

  • detailed comments and suggestions;

  • a clear recommendation: accept without changes, accept with revisions, or reject.

Based on the reviews, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

  • recommend the article for publication;

  • recommend the article for publication after revision taking into account the comments;

  • not recommend the article for publication (with a justification of the reasons).

7. Revision procedure and fixation of the acceptance date

If revisions are required, authors receive anonymous reviewer comments and a deadline for revision – 2–4 weeks (depending on the volume of comments). They must provide a point-by-point response and submit the revised manuscript with a cover letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.

After the manuscript is accepted for publication, the acceptance date is recorded. It is indicated in the article's metadata and in the final publication together with the received date.

8. Re-review and final decision

After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor-in-chief assesses the quality of the revisions. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent for re-review (to the same or new reviewers). The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief based on all received reviews and the authors' responses.

9. Publication date

The publication date is the day the issue of the journal in which the article is published appears. This date is also indicated in the article's metadata and on the article itself.

10. Adherence to international standards

The journal adheres to the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in the field of peer review, in particular the document "Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers" (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers/plain-text).