Review Process (Interim) for Modern Transportation and Metallurgical Materials
In accordance with the Regulations on the Administration of Publishing, the Provisions on the Administration of Periodical Publishing, the Quality Requirements for Scientific and Technical Journals, and other relevant regulations and standards, these Procedures are hereby formulated.
I. Editorial Positions
The editorial department of Modern Transportation and Metallurgical Materials is the primary body responsible for managing the peer review process of the journal. The journal adopts an Editor-in-Chief responsibility system, with the following editorial positions established according to their respective duties: Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors-in-Chief, Responsible Editors, and Editors.
II. Review Contents and Procedures
(I) Review Contents
1. Strict Preliminary Screening of Manuscripts
The preliminary screening is conducted by the editor. In accordance with the requirements specified in the journal's Submission Guidelines, the editor is responsible for manuscript registration and an initial assessment of the manuscript, including its subject scope, research level, completeness of content, and plagiarism detection.
2. Strict Initial Review
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are forwarded to the appropriate Deputy Editor-in-Chief for an initial review. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief shall provide written review comments and, for manuscripts deemed suitable, recommend them for external peer review. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's requirements at this stage shall be rejected based on the Deputy Editors-in-Chief’s recommendation.
3. Strict Implementation of the Peer Review Policy: Double-Blind Peer Review
The editor shall select and invite reviewers with expertise in the relevant field to conduct a double-blind review and provide review reports together with revision suggestions.
The main contents of the double-blind peer review are as follows:
(1) To evaluate the academic value and academic quality of the manuscript (including its theoretical level, scientific merit, originality, etc.), assess whether its structure is rigorous and well organized, and provide written review comments in accordance with the review requirements.
(2) Manuscripts for which both reviewers recommend acceptance shall proceed to the final review by the Editor-in-Chief.
(3) If one of the two reviewers recommends rejection, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief shall determine whether an additional review is necessary. If so, the manuscript shall be submitted to a third peer reviewer. If the third reviewer recommends rejection, the manuscript shall be rejected. If the third reviewer recommends acceptance, the manuscript shall proceed to the final review by the Editor-in-Chief.
(4) Manuscripts for which both reviewers recommend rejection shall be rejected.
4. Strict Final Review
The final review is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief.
The main contents of the final review are as follows:
(1) To review the table of contents for the current issue and determine whether the manuscripts are approved for typesetting and publication.
(2) For manuscripts on which differences of opinion arise during the review process, the Editor-in-Chief shall give them special attention and, after carefully reading the manuscript, make the final decision on whether it should be accepted.
(3) During the final review of all manuscripts scheduled for publication, the Editor-in-Chief has the right to veto the publication of any manuscript.
(II) Principles for Handling Special Cases
When reviewers express different opinions on a manuscript, the following principles shall apply:
Where reviewers have different opinions on a manuscript, the following principles shall apply:
1. If there are concerns regarding duplicate submission, academic integrity, or other related issues, the manuscript shall be rejected after verification.
2. If there are different opinions regarding the research direction or academic viewpoints of the manuscript, additional rounds of review may be arranged, and the authors may be requested to revise the manuscript and provide a response to the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may proceed to the next stage only after unanimous approval by the reviewers.
3. If the differences of opinion concern only language expression, writing style, or formatting, relevant experts may be invited to assist the authors in revising the manuscript.
III. Review of Supplement, Special Issue, and Special Section Manuscripts
The review procedures described above shall also apply to manuscripts submitted to supplements, special issues, and special sections. Manuscripts submitted to supplements, special issues, or special sections shall undergo the same peer review and editorial procedures as regular submissions, and the final acceptance decision shall likewise be made by the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the entire content of the journal, including supplements, special issues, and special sections. When organizing supplements, special issues, or special sections, the editorial department may invite leading experts in the relevant field to serve as Guest Editors. The work of Guest Editors shall be supervised by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the peer review process.
IV. Review of Internal Submissions
Manuscripts submitted by members of the journal's Editorial Board, Editors, and Guest Editors shall be subject to the same peer review procedures as all other submissions to the journal.
Peer review shall be conducted independently of the submitting Editorial Board member, Editor, or Guest Editor and their research group. In addition, Editorial Board members, Editors, and Guest Editors shall not participate in the review of manuscripts submitted by themselves, their family members, their colleagues, or any other authors with whom they have a conflict of interest.