Advanced Mechanical and Materials Research (AMMR) is committed to rigorous, fair, and timely peer review. All research submissions are evaluated through a double-anonymized (double-blind) process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are withheld from one another to minimize bias.
Review Process
- 1Editorial screening — the editor checks the manuscript for scope, completeness, formatting, and similarity before it enters review.
- 2Reviewer assignment — at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise are invited.
- 3Review — reviewers assess originality, technical soundness, methodology, clarity, and significance, and submit confidential comments together with a recommendation.
- 4Decision — the handling editor makes a decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) informed by the reviewer reports.
- 5Revision and re-review — revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers before a final decision.
Reviewer Selection and Qualifications
- Reviewers are selected for demonstrable expertise in the manuscript's subject area, evidenced by their own peer-reviewed publication record.
- Reviewers must hold no conflict of interest with the authors (no recent collaboration, shared institution, or competing interest).
- Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers; where their recommendations diverge substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited.
- Reviewers are invited from diverse institutions and, wherever possible, from more than one country.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Treat the manuscript as a confidential document.
- Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments that address the substance of the work, not only language or formatting.
- Declare any conflict of interest and decline where appropriate.
- Alert the editor to any ethical concern, including suspected plagiarism or data manipulation.
- Not use unpublished material or ideas from the manuscript for personal advantage.
- Not use generative-AI tools to conduct the review or to process the manuscript (see the Generative AI Policy).
Timeline
Each reviewer is asked to return their report within 3–4 weeks. Authors can typically expect a first decision within 4–8 weeks of submission, depending on reviewer availability.
Editorial Decisions and Integrity
- Editorial decisions (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) rest solely with the handling editor and are based on the reviewers' assessments and the academic merit of the work.
- The journal does not offer any 'fast-track' service and never guarantees acceptance in exchange for fees, revisions, or any other consideration.
- A Letter of Acceptance (LOA) is issued only after a manuscript has formally been accepted following peer review — never before or during review.
- Every submission is screened for similarity; manuscripts exceeding acceptable limits are returned or rejected (see the Plagiarism Policy).
- All allegations and appeals are handled in line with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and flowcharts.