Peer Review Policy
This journal accepts rapid communications that can take the form of letters, short papers and practical case studies, of broad interest to industry, specifically innovative manufacturing processes.
The peer-review process is a fundamental step in any academic journal, critical for its success and prestige. This journal builds on the competence of the Journal Editors and the Editorial Advisory Board member's field expertise.
All journal content is subjected to a formal review process. All submissions are assessed first by the Editor-in-Chief for suitability for the journal. Afterward, if suitable, they are submitted to a blind peer-review. The Editor-in-chief distributes the different submissions through the associated editors (and himself), whose background is most well suited to the subject of the submission at hand. The peer reviewers will be selected from the editorial board and from a pool of other experts in the area who have demonstrated their expertise through the publication of important works in the relevant field, to guarantee the quality of its content, structure, and language.
The journal recommends COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Potential reviewers should provide accurate personal and professional information and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. When approached to review, reviewers should agree to review only if they have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in the assessment, clearly identifying any gaps.
A declaration of potential competing (or conflicting) interests is required to accept to review a manuscript. Any potential competing interest that may prevent from reviewing should be raised. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature. In addition, the reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a complete and fair review or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
It is courteous to respond to an invitation to review within a reasonable time frame, even if you cannot undertake the review. The reviewers should agree to review only if they are able to return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame. Please always inform the journal promptly if the circumstances change and it is not possible to fulfill the original agreement (or if an extension is required).