Reviewing Standards


The Editorial Team of Advances in Mechanical and Materials Engineering complies with the ethical standards recommended by the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, as well as the recommendations provided by of Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland) in a booklet „Good practices in reviewing procedures in science”, Warsaw, 2011.

  1. To evaluate each article, thematic editors (scientific) appoint at least two independent reviewers, from the outside the author’s institution. In case of  articles written in English, at least one reviewer is affiliated with a foreign institution other than the place of employment of the author(s) of the article.
  2. Thematic editors choose the best-qualified reviewers in the field.
  3. Between the reviewers and authors of the article there is no conflict of interest. The reviewers are obliged to sign a declaration of no conflict of interest.
  4. Reviewing procedure is done confidentially (a single-blind review process). In a single-blind review process, the names of reviewers are hidden from the authors, which allows for impartial opinions that are not influenced by the authors.
  5. Each review shall be in writing and ends with a request for approval or rejection of the article for publication. The overall assessment is as follows: accept as is, accept after minor revision, accept after major revision (re-evaluation is needed) and reject.
  6. Reviews that do not meet the substantive and procedural requirements are not accepted.
  7. After being approved by the editor-in-chief, the paper is sent to reviewers who comment on its acceptance or rejection. Reviewers are entitled to re-examine the revised text.
  8. The condition for accepting a text for publication is two clearly positive reviews. In the case of diametrically different evaluation of the text by two reviewers, the editors may appoint a third reviewer.
  9. Reviewers’ remarks are transmitted to the author whose duty is to correct the text.
  10. The final decision to qualify or reject the article belongs to the editor-in-chief in consultation with the members of the Editorial Team.
  11. Eligibility or rejection criteria are included in the review form.
  12. The review is sent via a webpage of the Open Journal System (OJS) of the Advances in Mechanical and Materials Engineering journal.
  13. Papers may also be rejected by the Editors without undergoing review if the manuscript is outside the scope of the journal, possesses elements that are suspected to be plagiarised or is badly presented.
  14. The names of the cooperative reviewers will be quoted once a year – in the last issue of the journal, and published on the website.
  15. Reviews of articles are prepared free of charge.


Guide for reviewers


During the review, reviewers should answer the following questions by selecting the appropriate boxes on the review forms or providing detailed comments.

  • Does the title of the paper reflect the content sufficiently and clearly?
  • Does the abstract contain sufficient and useful information? Does it reflect the content and summarise the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions?
  • Does the abstract meet the requirements for length (minimum 100 words)?
  • Are the aims of the article adequately specified?
  • Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
  • Are the methodologies adequately described?
  • Do the results seem reasonable based on the described methodology?
  • Is the organisation of the paper satisfactory?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the results?
  • Are SI units used? Are units consistent in the text, tables and figures?
  • Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
  • Are the results presented in the paper novel?

The review should be performed objectively and in detail so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points you raise. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions, using appropriate arguments to support their theses.

Reviewers cannot suggest citing their own works unless there are substantive grounds for doing so. Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves or another author when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the article.

Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted tools to review submissions or to generate review reports.


Reviewer's declaration