Peer Review Policy

The Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics" applies a rigorous, fair, confidential, and academically independent peer review process to maintain the quality, validity, originality, and integrity of the research it publishes.

Peer review assists the editors in making evidence-based editorial decisions and provides authors with constructive scholarly feedback. The journal’s peer review procedures are conducted in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and internationally recognized principles of transparency and good editorial practice.

Scope of Peer Review

The following manuscript types normally undergo external peer review:

  • Research Articles;
  • Review Articles;
  • Short Communications;
  • Technical Notes;
  • Case Studies;
  • Perspectives containing substantive scholarly analysis;
  • other manuscripts containing original scientific or technical findings.

Each manuscript subject to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Editorials, letters, invited commentaries, book reviews, announcements, corrections, retractions, and other non-research content may undergo editorial review rather than external peer review. Where a published item is exempt from the journal’s standard peer review procedure, its review status will be clearly identified.

Peer Review Model

The journal uses a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review model.

Under this model:

  • the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers;
  • the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors;
  • reviewer reports are not published with the article;
  • all communication between authors and reviewers is conducted through the editorial office.

Authors are responsible for preparing an anonymized manuscript and removing names, affiliations, acknowledgments, identifying references, file metadata, and other information that may reveal their identity.

The editorial office may return a manuscript to the authors for further anonymization before peer review begins. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where authors reveal their identity through preprints, public datasets, conference materials, self-citations, or other publicly accessible information.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
  • complies with the journal’s submission and formatting requirements;
  • demonstrates sufficient originality and scientific relevance;
  • presents an appropriate and sufficiently described methodology;
  • meets applicable ethical and research integrity requirements;
  • contains adequate declarations concerning authorship, funding, competing interests, ethics approval, consent, and data availability;
  • is written with sufficient clarity to permit academic evaluation.

The editorial office may also conduct plagiarism screening, reference checks, authorship verification, and other preliminary integrity assessments.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it is outside the journal’s scope, scientifically or methodologically inadequate, insufficiently original, poorly prepared, ethically problematic, or inconsistent with the journal’s policies.

A desk rejection does not imply that the subject of the manuscript lacks academic value; it means that the submission is not suitable for further consideration by the journal in its current form.

Selection of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

  • relevant subject expertise;
  • publication and research experience;
  • independence from the authors and the reported research;
  • absence of actual or potential competing interests;
  • previous review quality and reliability;
  • ability to complete the review within the requested period;
  • professional and ethical conduct.

Editors should seek an appropriate balance of expertise and, where practicable, consider geographical, institutional, gender, and career-stage diversity when selecting reviewers. Academic competence, independence, and suitability for the manuscript remain the primary criteria.

Reviewers should not normally:

  • be employed by the same institution as any of the authors;
  • have recently collaborated or published with the authors;
  • have a close personal, supervisory, financial, or professional relationship with the authors;
  • be directly involved in competing research that could reasonably affect their impartiality;
  • have participated in preparing the manuscript or the research under review.

Author-Suggested and Excluded Reviewers

Authors may be permitted to recommend qualified reviewers or request the exclusion of particular individuals when submitting a manuscript.

The editors are not required to use author-suggested reviewers or accept requests for exclusion.

Author-suggested reviewers must be independent and must not have a relationship with the authors that could compromise the objectivity of the review.

The editorial office independently verifies reviewer identities, affiliations, expertise, publication records, and contact details. Institutional e-mail addresses should be used whenever reasonably available.

At least one reviewer must be selected independently of any recommendations made by the authors.

Authors must not provide false reviewer identities, fabricated contact details, personal e-mail addresses controlled by the authors, or other misleading information. Such conduct constitutes peer review manipulation and will be handled under the journal’s policy on research and publication misconduct.

Peer Review Process

Following the initial editorial assessment, manuscripts considered suitable for external review are assigned to an editor with relevant subject expertise.

The usual peer review process consists of the following stages:

  1. appointment of a handling editor;
  2. identification and invitation of qualified independent reviewers;
  3. submission of at least two independent reviewer reports;
  4. editorial assessment of the reports;
  5. communication of the editorial decision and anonymized reviewer comments to the authors;
  6. submission of a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response, where revision is invited;
  7. further reviewer or editorial evaluation where necessary;
  8. final editorial decision.

Reviewers are asked to complete their reports within the period specified in the review invitation. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, the reviewer should promptly notify the editorial office.

If a review is substantially delayed, incomplete, inappropriate, or insufficiently reasoned, the editor may invite an additional or replacement reviewer.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript in relation to:

  • relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
  • originality and scientific contribution;
  • clarity of the research objectives or questions;
  • appropriateness and reproducibility of the methodology;
  • validity of analytical, numerical, computational, or experimental procedures;
  • adequacy of verification, validation, uncertainty analysis, sensitivity analysis, statistical methods, or error assessment, where applicable;
  • accuracy and clarity of tables, figures, equations, models, and supplementary materials;
  • reliability and interpretation of the results;
  • consistency of the conclusions with the evidence presented;
  • completeness and relevance of the references;
  • transparency concerning data, code, computational models, materials, and methods;
  • compliance with ethical, authorship, and research integrity requirements;
  • overall clarity, organization, and scholarly presentation.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions required for scientific validity and optional recommendations intended to improve presentation.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications unless those sources are genuinely relevant and necessary. Requests intended primarily to increase citations to particular authors, journals, or publications are unacceptable.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports must be:

  • objective;
  • evidence-based;
  • specific;
  • constructive;
  • respectful;
  • sufficiently detailed to support the reviewer’s recommendation.

Personal criticism, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, hostile comments, and unsupported allegations are prohibited.

A recommendation to reject a manuscript must be accompanied by a clear scholarly explanation.

Reviewers may submit confidential comments to the editor. Such comments must not contradict the main scientific assessment provided to the authors or be used to make unsupported allegations that the authors cannot reasonably address.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject and Resubmit as a New Manuscript;
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor makes the final decision after considering:

  • the reviewer reports;
  • the quality and integrity of the manuscript;
  • the authors’ responses and revisions;
  • compliance with the journal’s policies;
  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • any additional ethical or methodological concerns.

Editors are not required to follow the majority recommendation of the reviewers. Where reviewer reports conflict substantially, the editor may evaluate the manuscript independently, request clarification, or obtain an additional review.

Acceptance cannot be guaranteed before completion of the editorial and peer review process. Editorial decisions are independent of the authors’ ability to pay an article processing charge.

Revisions and Further Review

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

  • a revised manuscript;
  • a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments;
  • a clear explanation of all changes made;
  • a reasoned response where a recommendation has not been followed.

Major revisions will normally be returned to one or more of the original reviewers.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor without further external review when the requested changes do not require additional specialist evaluation.

The submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary files that support the manuscript’s findings may be made available to reviewers and considered as part of the peer review process.

Reviewers should assess supplementary materials where they are necessary to evaluate the reliability, reproducibility, or interpretation of the study.

Confidentiality requirements apply equally to manuscripts, datasets, computer code, models, videos, appendices, and all other supplementary materials supplied for review.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript or review invitation with another person;
  • discuss the manuscript outside the authorized editorial process;
  • contact the authors directly;
  • disclose unpublished findings;
  • retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review;
  • use unpublished information for personal, academic, competitive, financial, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers who require assistance from a colleague, trainee, or co-reviewer must obtain prior written permission from the editorial office. The identity and contribution of every person participating in the review must be disclosed to the editor.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Peer Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript, its supplementary materials, unpublished data, figures, tables, code, reviewer invitation, or any confidential information relating to the submission into publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence tools.

Such use may compromise confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property rights, and the authors’ control over unpublished work.

Reviewers must personally evaluate the manuscript and remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, reasoning, and integrity of their review report.

AI tools must not be used to:

  • generate the substantive scientific evaluation of a manuscript;
  • replace the reviewer’s expert judgment;
  • make publication recommendations;
  • conduct undisclosed analysis of confidential manuscript content;
  • create fabricated references, evidence, or reviewer comments.

Limited use of a secure and journal-approved tool for language correction or accessibility purposes may be permitted only with prior authorization from the editorial office and without uploading identifiable or confidential manuscript content.

Any authorized use of an AI-assisted tool must be disclosed to the editor in the review report.

Competing Interests of Reviewers

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest.

A competing interest may arise from:

  • recent collaboration or co-authorship with an author;
  • employment at the same institution;
  • supervisory, mentoring, or personal relationships;
  • financial interests;
  • professional disputes;
  • direct academic competition;
  • involvement in the research or manuscript;
  • any other circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality.

If a competing interest becomes apparent after accepting the review, the reviewer must stop evaluating the manuscript and immediately contact the editor.

The editor determines whether the reviewer may continue or should be replaced.

Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should notify the editor confidentially if they identify suspected:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • inappropriate manipulation of images or results;
  • citation manipulation;
  • unethical research;
  • authorship irregularities;
  • undeclared competing interests;
  • peer review manipulation;
  • substantial overlap with another submission or publication.

Reviewers should provide specific evidence where possible and should not directly investigate the authors or contact third parties independently.

Allegations will be handled by the editorial office in accordance with the journal’s applicable policies and relevant COPE guidance.

Reviewer Identity and Misconduct

Fraudulent reviewer identities, impersonation, identity theft, fabricated e-mail accounts, coordinated review rings, unauthorized delegation, and manipulation of reviewer recommendations constitute serious misconduct.

The journal may:

  • terminate the affected review;
  • reject or reconsider the manuscript;
  • remove the reviewer from the reviewer database;
  • request supporting information;
  • notify the relevant institution or competent authority;
  • correct or retract a published article where the integrity of the peer review process has been compromised.

All allegations will be assessed fairly and confidentially before action is taken.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, editorial board members, publisher employees, or persons closely associated with the journal are not given preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts are handled by an independent editor who:

  • has no relevant competing interest;
  • was not involved in preparing the manuscript;
  • independently selects the reviewers;
  • oversees the entire peer review process;
  • makes or recommends the editorial decision without interference from the submitting editor or board member.

The submitting editor or editorial board member must not access confidential reviewer identities, reports, or internal editorial discussions beyond the information normally provided to authors.

Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Manuscripts submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same editorial, ethical, and peer review standards as manuscripts submitted to regular issues.

Guest editors may coordinate the peer review process but must comply with the journal’s policies on confidentiality, reviewer independence, competing interests, and editorial integrity.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the content of the journal and may appoint an independent editor where a guest editor has a competing interest.

Guest editorials or manuscripts authored by guest editors must be handled by an independent editor.

Reviewer Diversity

The journal seeks to develop a broad and inclusive reviewer community.

When appropriate reviewers are available, editors should consider diversity in:

  • disciplinary and methodological expertise;
  • geographical representation;
  • institutional affiliation;
  • career stage;
  • gender representation.

Diversity considerations must not replace the fundamental requirements of relevant expertise, independence, professional conduct, and absence of competing interests.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal recognizes peer review as an important scholarly contribution.

Reviewers may receive:

  • an official certificate or letter confirming completion of the review;
  • acknowledgment in a periodic public list of reviewers, subject to the reviewer’s consent and without identifying the manuscripts reviewed;
  • confirmation of review activity for an approved external recognition service, where technically available and authorized by the reviewer.

The journal will not disclose the connection between a reviewer and a specific manuscript without the reviewer’s explicit consent.

Reviewer recognition does not affect the confidentiality or independence of the peer review process.

Appeals Concerning Peer Review

Authors may appeal a decision where they believe that a substantial factual, procedural, methodological, or ethical error occurred during peer review.

An appeal must:

  • clearly identify the contested issues;
  • provide a reasoned response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments;
  • include supporting evidence where appropriate;
  • avoid personal allegations or unsupported claims.

An appeal is not a new round of peer review and will not be accepted solely because the author disagrees with the reviewers’ academic judgment.

Where possible, the appeal will be considered by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision. The journal’s final decision on the appeal will normally be conclusive.

External Standards

The peer review practices of the Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics" are informed by:

  • the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;
  • the COPE Core Practices;
  • the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
  • the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement;
  • applicable national legislation and internationally recognized standards of research integrity.

Policy Administration

This policy is effective from 1 August 2026 and will be reviewed periodically to ensure its continued alignment with applicable ethical standards and the editorial practices of the Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics".

Questions, complaints, appeals, or allegations relating to peer review should be submitted to the Editorial Office at instmechofficial@gmail.com.

All relevant matters will be considered in accordance with the journal’s applicable policies and relevant COPE guidance.


ISSN 2010-7250 (Online)