Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers safeguard the quality and integrity of everything IJMIE publishes. Thank you for sharing your expertise with the journal and its authors. These guidelines explain what we ask of reviewers; the overall process is described in the Peer Review Process.

The Review Model

IJMIE uses double-anonymous peer review: reviewers do not know who the authors are, and authors are not told who reviewed their work. Each research manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers, and the handling editor makes the decision based on their reports.

Before You Accept an Invitation

  • Accept only if the manuscript is within your expertise and you can complete the review by the due date shown in the invitation (normally four weeks). If you need more time, please ask the editor.
  • Declare any competing interest — for example a recent collaboration with the authors, working at the same institution, or a financial or personal interest in the outcome. If in doubt, ask the editor before accepting.
  • If you believe you know who the authors are, tell the editor, who will decide whether you should continue.

What to Assess

  • Originality and significance — does the work make a clear, new contribution to materials science or engineering?
  • Methods and reproducibility — are the materials, processing conditions, characterization and testing methods described in enough detail to repeat the work?
  • Results and interpretation — do the data support the conclusions, with appropriate statistics, uncertainties and controls? Are limitations and alternative explanations discussed?
  • Presentation — is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized, with informative figures and tables?
  • Literature — is previous work cited fairly and accurately, without excessive self-citation?
  • Data and integrity — does the manuscript include a data availability statement (see the Research Data Policy)? Are there signs of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or manipulated data or images?

Writing Your Report

  1. Summary — a few sentences on the work and its main claims, showing that you have understood it.
  2. Major comments — issues that affect the validity of the conclusions or the significance of the work, with specific suggestions for improvement.
  3. Minor comments — points of clarity and presentation, missing references and typographical errors.
  4. Recommendation — accept, minor revision, major revision or reject, with any confidential comments for the editor entered separately.

Please be specific, constructive and courteous. Comment on the work rather than the authors, and do not ask for citations of your own work unless they are genuinely needed.

Confidentiality and Generative AI

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share them, use their content before publication, or discuss them with others without the editor's permission. Do not upload any part of a manuscript, or of your report, to generative AI tools or other external services — see the Generative AI Policy.

Using the Review System

Invitations are sent by email from the journal's editorial system. Use the links in the email to accept or decline, then log in to download the manuscript, enter your report and recommendation, and upload an annotated file if you wish. Please remove your name from the properties of any file you upload.

Recognition

On request, the editorial office will provide a letter confirming your reviewing for the journal. Reviewers may also record their review activity on services such as ORCID without disclosing the content of their reviews.

Join the Reviewer Panel

To review for IJMIE, please create an account, select the Reviewer role and list your reviewing interests. Researchers with a doctorate and a publication record in materials science or engineering are particularly welcome. Questions can be sent to the editorial office through the Contact page.