Peer Review Policy

1. Peer Review Process:

Metal Powder Report (MPR) operates a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and validity of the research published in the journal. The peer review process is as follows:

  • Submission: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal's scope and formatting guidelines. Submissions that meet these criteria are assigned to relevant expert reviewers.

  • Double-Blind Review: Metal Powder Report (MPR) follows a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. This ensures unbiased evaluation of the manuscript based solely on its scientific merit.

  • Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript. They are invited to provide feedback on the scientific accuracy, methodology, significance, and originality of the research.

  • Review Evaluation: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on predetermined criteria and provide constructive feedback to the authors. They may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript based on their assessment.

  • Editorial Decision: Upon receiving the reviewers' comments, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript and the reviewers' recommendations to make a decision. The decision may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection of the manuscript.

  • Author Response: In the case of revisions, authors are provided with the reviewers' comments and given the opportunity to address the concerns raised and make necessary revisions to the manuscript.

  • Final Decision: After revisions, the revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the editorial team to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed. A final decision is made regarding acceptance for publication.

2. Reviewer Guidelines:

  • Reviewers are expected to conduct the peer review process objectively and impartially, providing feedback that is constructive, respectful, and relevant to the manuscript.

  • Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.

  • Reviewers should maintain confidentiality throughout the peer review process and refrain from disclosing any information about the manuscript or its review to unauthorized individuals.

3. Editorial Oversight:

The editorial team of Metal Powder Report (MPR) oversees the peer review process to ensure its fairness, transparency, and adherence to established guidelines. Editors may seek additional opinions or consult with editorial board members as needed to make informed decisions.

4. Contact Information:

For inquiries regarding the peer review process or to volunteer as a reviewer for Metal Powder Report (MPR), please contact the editorial office.

Note to Reviewers and Authors:

Metal Powder Report (MPR) values the contributions of reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. We appreciate your dedication to the peer review process and your commitment to advancing scientific knowledge in the field of metal powders. Thank you for your valuable contributions.