Publishing procedure

Publishing Procedure
JMachEng operates a rigorous and transparent peer-review process that aims to maximize quality and originality of papers. ( editing peer reviews ) 
Peer-review is a double-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Papers is evaluated by the Managing Editor (ME), Statistical Editor (SE), and Editor-in-Chief (EIC) before they are sent to reviewers.
The JMachEng strives to rely mostly on reviewers from renowned foreign universities with a strong academic record.

General, JMachEng publishing procedure includes twelve main steps:
(1) Submission of Paper – the corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to JMachEng via online system named  Editorial system.

(2) Editorial Office Assessment – JMachEng checks the paper’s layout and its conformity with JMachEng Guidelines (JMachEng Paper template) to ensure that it includes the required sections and formatting. In addition, antiplagiarism software ( iThenticate ) is employed to check the ethical standards. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point. If the paper does not meet the JMachEng Guidelines/ethical standards, it is rejected by JMachEng.

(3) Statistical Methods Assessment – the paper with statistical calculations is checked by the SE for statistical assumptions, methods, and calculations. If the paper includes critical statistical errors and the evaluation of SE was negative, the paper is rejected by JMachEng.

(4) Appraisal by EIC – EIC checks the paper and consults a subject-matter expert from the Editorial Board (EB) to verify that the paper is appropriate for JMachEng, it is original, and its content meets the academic standards. If the paper does not meet these requirements, it is rejected without being reviewed any further.

(5) Invitation to Reviewers – JMachEng sends invitations to a minimum two or three reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. . Each reviewer signs the Disclosure statement concerning no potential conflict of interest. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is two, but the number of reviewers may vary depending on the field of study and sometimes three reviewers are invited. Reviewers are appointed on the basis of absence of conflict of interest, their research reputation and quality of their previous reviews, if they have conducted any beforehand.

(6) Reviews are Conducted – reviewers have enough time (usually 30 days) to read the paper several times and assess it according their knowledge and JMachEng’s guidelines for reviewers. Reviewers use a score sheet to rate the paper as well as provide comments.
Their decision may be:

• Accept
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions
• Revise and resubmit
• Reject.

(7) Evaluation of the Reviews (Journal do not editing reviews in any case) – if the reviews differ widely, upon prior agreements with EIC, ME may invite a member of EB or an additional reviewer to obtain an extra opinion about the paper. In addition, EIC rates each of reviews (reviewer) and assesses their usefulness for the authors by using a five-point scale.

In the case of an unprofessional review, the journal's response is in accordance with COPE recommendations and includes, among other things, hanging the reviewer and discontinuing further cooperation. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) provides detailed guidance on addressing issues related to unprofessional peer reviews, which include:

• Communication with the Reviewer: Informing the reviewer about their unethical or unprofessional behavior and explaining why it is inappropriate.
• Revocation of Review: Disregarding the review in question if it is found to be biased, inflammatory, or unprofessional.
• Ending Collaboration: Journals may choose to discontinue future cooperation with the reviewer for serious violations.
• Reporting Serious Misconduct: In cases of significant ethical breaches, such as breaches of confidentiality, the journal might escalate the issue to the reviewer’s institution or employer.

For more precise steps, you can refer to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and their case-based resources that outline responses to specific ethical dilemmas encountered in peer review.

(8) Making and Communicating Decision – EIC makes a decision about the paper and sends the decision to the author including all reviews and additional relevant EIC comments to help the author to revise their paper. The decision may be:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject.

If the opinions of reviewers, a member of EB, and EIC indicate low scientific and/or methodological quality of the paper, the paper is rejected by EIC.

(9) Revising and Resubmitting – the authors are asked to revise the paper based on the reviewers and EIC comments. In addition, the authors also need to make a point-by-point response to each comment indicating how the change has been made, or if a certain revision cannot be made, they provide sufficient explanations politely – the response is written in the JMachEng Revisions Document form. After the revision is completed, the author resubmit the
revised paper to JMachEng.

(10) Next Steps – the revision goes through review by EIC only, or usually by both reviewers sent to the reviewers who made such a decision. The second round of reviews is carried out – and then steps 6 and 9 are repeated. Most of papers undergo more than two rounds of reviews.

(11) Acceptance – If reviewers and EIC believe that the revision has adequately addressed their previous concerns and the paper has been improved after the revision, the paper moves to the last step. EIC sends the author an acceptance letter and a request to submit the final version of the paper (with names, acknowledgment, finding, etc.) and complete JMachEng Declaration of Copyright.

(12) Production – the paper is proofread by the English Editor (EE) and checked by the Publishing Editor (PE), formatted by the Technical Editor (TE), and then put into production. DOI is assigned to the paper and the paper is published in version online first. Articles published in the Onlie-first version are not yet assigned to any issue of the journal's journal, and they can be referenced by providing a DOI.

(13) Publication fee - Once the article has been accepted for publication, the Editorial Office will contact the Corresponding Author about the publication fee payment.
Private persons and institutions: 450EUR (from 2025 - 500EUR) + VAT (value added tax paid in the buyer's country)
All bank commissions are paid by the buyer.
The above amounts apply to articles of no more than 12 pages.
For each additional page over 12 pages the fee is 40EUR + VAT.

(14) Print/Online version - At the end of each quarter, another Print/Online version of the yearbook is submitted from the Online-first collection of 8-14 papers. The Print/Online version is the final article assigned to one of the four yearbook books, with actual volume/issue/pages.

(15) Retractions of the articles: (retraction guidelines)
Journals editors will consider retracting a publication if:

• they have a clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.

Notice of the retraction will be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and authors in the retraction heading), clearly identify the retracted article and state who is retracting the article. Retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.
Editorial board always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.