Peer Review Policy for Engineering Fracture Mechanics
The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Engineering Fracture Mechanics and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed as soon as possible.
Type of Peer Review
This journal employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
Is original
Is methodologically sound
Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
Correctly references previous relevant work
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts - it is the responsibility of the author to ensure that the manuscript is written in English at an acceptable standard. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Elsevier may perform some minor editing of the accepted manuscript at proof stage.
How long does the review process take?
The manuscript will usually be reviewed within 2 to 3 months. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought, which will cause delays. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
Editor's Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a Referee for Engineering Fracture Mechanics
If you are not currently a referee for Engineering Fracture Mechanics but would like to be added to the list of referees for this title, please contact either of the co-Editors. The benefits of refereeing for Engineering Fracture Mechanics include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to be acknowledged in an annual statement in Engineering Fracture Mechanics if you have reviewed a significant number of manuscripts in the preceding 12 months. You may also be able to cite your work for Engineering Fracture Mechanics as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organisations.
Home | Elsevier Sites | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Feedback | Site Map | A Reed Elsevier Company