FOR REVIEWERS
The Archives for Technical Sciences acknowledges Reviewers collaboration on guaranteeing the scientific quality of published papers.
The Archives for Technical Sciences recommends the COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines for peer–reviewers.
Peer review
All submitted articles are subject to assessment and peer review to ensure editorial appropriateness and technical correctness.
Research published in the journal must be:
- Scientifically valid – adhering to accepted community standards of research.
- Technically accurate in its methods and results.
- Representative of a specific advance, or replication, or null/negative result, which is worthy of publication.
- As reproducible as possible – sharing underlying data, code, and supporting materials wherever able.
- Ethically sound and transparent – adhering to best practice with respect to animal and human studies, consent to publish, and clear declaration of potential conflicts of interests, both real and perceived.
In the spirit of sharing findings through our open science mission, emphasis is not placed on novelty, interest, or perceived impact. Replication studies, particularly of research published in this journal, are encouraged.
In order for an article to be accepted for publication, the assigned editor will first consider if the manuscript meets the minimum editorial standards and fits within the scope of the journal. If an article is considered suitable for the journal, the editor will ideally solicit at least two external peer reviewers (who will remain anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report) to assess the article before confirming a decision to accept. Decisions to reject are at the discretion of the editor.
Our research integrity team will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer review, for example, on submissions with serious ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the editor before deciding on appropriate actions, including but not limited to: recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by additional editors, and declining to further consider a submission.
Peer Review Process
Manuscripts submitted to the Archives for Technical Sciences are subjected to rigorous peer review by the responsible editor and at least two anonymous and experienced referees selected by the Editorial Board.
Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail, through the website.
Peer reviewers are asked to complete the review form, where they report their opinion on a number of evaluation criteria pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of the manuscript. Reviewers’ comments and the completed review form will then be analysed by the assigned editor.All relevant information will be forwarded to the corresponding author to consider the required modifications and responses. The revised manuscript will then be re-evaluated by the editor, and the final decision will be communicated to the corresponding author.
Manuscripts may be rejected directly by the Chief Editor if considered to be out of scope or scientifically below the quality standards required by the journal. Poor English is also a reason for an instant reject.
Authors are given a maximum of four weeks for revision.