Guides for Reviewers

1. Introduction and purpose

Transactions of FAMENA relies on the expertise of qualified reviewers to uphold the quality and integrity of published research. The purpose of these guidelines is to assist reviewers in conducting thorough, constructive, and unbiased evaluations of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Peer review plays a central role in assessing:

  • Originality

  • Technical soundness

  • Clarity and quality of presentation

  • Relevance to the field of mechanical engineering

Reviewers are expected to follow these guidelines and adhere to the highest ethical standards.

2. General responsibilities

As a reviewer for Transactions of FAMENA, you are expected to:

  • Perform objective and constructive assessment of the manuscript

  • Respect deadlines and communicate promptly with the editorial office

  • Maintain confidentiality of the review content and manuscript

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest

  • Provide clear, specific, and respectful feedback to authors

Your evaluation contributes directly to the editorial decision-making process and the journal’s reputation for scholarly excellence.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review and all associated materials must be treated as confidential. You must not:

  • Share or discuss the manuscript with others

  • Use information from the manuscript for your own research

  • Retain copies of the manuscript beyond the review process

Confidentiality safeguards the integrity of the review and protects authors’ unpublished work.

4. Conflicts of interest

You should decline to review if you have any actual or potential conflict of interest, including when:

  • You have collaborated with any of the authors within the past five years

  • You work at the same institution as any author

  • You have a personal, financial, or competitive relationship with the authors or the submitted work

  • You feel unable to provide an unbiased review

In such cases, promptly notify the editorial office so alternative reviewers can be assigned.

5. Evaluating a manuscript

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

A. Originality and novelty

  • Does the manuscript present new knowledge, ideas, or methodologies?

  • Is the contribution significant in the context of existing literature?

B. Technical quality and rigor

  • Are research methods and analyses appropriate and applied correctly?

  • Are results valid and supported by data?

  • Are limitations clearly acknowledged?

C. Clarity and presentation

  • Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written?

  • Are figures, tables, and references appropriate and accurate?

  • Is the work accessible to the journal’s readership?

D. Relevance and scope

  • Does the manuscript fall within the journal’s aims and scope?

  • Is the topic of interest to the mechanical engineering community?

6. Writing the review report

A high-quality review report should include:

A. Summary of the manuscript

Provide a brief overview of the research and its main contributions.

B. Major comments

Identify substantive issues related to:

  • Methodology

  • Analysis and interpretation

  • Validity of conclusions

  • Evidence supporting claims

Use clear, specific examples whenever possible.

C. Minor comments

Offer suggestions on:

  • Clarity and readability

  • Presentation, formatting, and language quality

  • References and citation accuracy

D. Recommendation

Indicate one of the following:

  • Accept without revision

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

Your recommendation should reflect the content and strength of your review.

7. Ethical considerations

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

  • Identify potential ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication)

  • Alert the Editor-in-Chief to any suspected misconduct

  • Avoid personal criticism; focus on the manuscript content

  • Protect authors’ rights and intellectual property

If you detect ethical issues, do not confront authors directly; communicate concerns confidentially to the editorial office.

8. Timeliness and communication

Transactions ofFAMENA reviewers are asked to complete reviews within the agreed time frame. If you are unable to meet the deadline or need more time, notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

Timely reviews help accelerate the publication process and ensure fair treatment of authors.

9. Recognition and confidentiality of reviewing activity

Transactions of FAMENA acknowledges the crucial role of peer reviewers. While reviews remain confidential, the journal may offer:

  • Certificates of reviewing

  • Acknowledgments in annual reviewer lists

  • Integration with reviewer recognition platforms (e.g., Publons/Reviewer Credits)

Such recognition is subject to reviewer consent and relevant privacy policies.

10. Reviewer development and resources

To support reviewers, Transactions of FAMENA provides:

  • Access to review coaching materials

  • Exemplary review report templates

  • Guidelines on ethical and technical review best practices

  • Training resources via publisher partners

Reviewers are encouraged to consult these resources to enhance the quality and effectiveness of their evaluations.