Guide for Reviewers
Phase one: The invitation and the threshold of rngagement
The reviewer’s involvement begins the moment an invitation is issued by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor. This communication is the critical first contact and is facilitated by the automated, but customizable, email templates in OJS.
Decoding the invitation email
The initial email contains a wealth of metadata designed to help the potential referee make an informed decision without initially requiring a login to the portal. This includes the manuscript title, a comprehensive abstract, and the relevant deadlines for both responding to the request and completing the full evaluation. The presence of an abstract is particularly significant in the field of structural integrity, as it allows the expert to immediately gauge whether the paper's focus—whether fatigue crack growth, damage mechanics, or experimental testing—aligns with their specific niche.
The invitation also provides a direct URL that serves as a gateway to the submission record. Upon clicking this link, the reviewer is directed to the OJS 3 interface, which is fully responsive and accessible across devices, from desktop computers to tablets. If the individual does not yet have an account, the system provides a streamlined registration process that prioritises essential fields like name, affiliation, and email.
Initial dashboard interaction and privacy
Once logged in, the reviewer encounters the "Submissions" dashboard. The "My Queue" tab highlights the active assignment, marked with a "Respond to Request" button. Before any technical details are revealed, the portal requires the reviewer to agree to the journal’s privacy statement regarding data collection and storage. This compliance step is a prerequisite for moving to "Step 1: Request."
In this initial step, the reviewer can view all submission details, including author-provided keywords and thematic sections. For Fracture and Structural Integrity, these sections are highly specialised and cover a broad spectrum of the mechanics of materials.
The critical choice: accept or decline
The reviewer must then decide whether to accept or decline the assignment. If the decision is to decline, the system provides an optional text field to explain the reason or to suggest alternative experts. This is a highly valued action, as it assists the editorial board in maintaining the journal’s target of a three-month review cycle.1 If the assignment is accepted, the workflow advances to "Step 2: Guidelines."
Phase two: ethical orientation and procedural guidelines
Step 2 is a foundational stage where the reviewer is presented with the journal’s specific policies and ethical expectations. It is not merely a formality but a safeguard for the integrity of the scientific record.
The framework of single-blind evaluation
Fracture and Structural Integrity employs a single-blind review procedure. While the reviewer is aware of the authors' identities and affiliations, the authors do not know who is evaluating their work. This model is intended to encourage rigorous, unbiased critique while allowing the reviewer to consider the context of the authors' previous research and institutional capabilities, which can be relevant in complex experimental structural mechanics.
The absolute prohibition of artificial intelligence
In an era of burgeoning generative technology, the journal has established a clear and uncompromising stance: the use of artificial intelligence in any capacity during the peer-review process is strictly prohibited. The rationale behind this policy is twofold. First, it ensures human-centric accountability; a scientific evaluation must be the product of an expert's critical thinking and experience. Second, it protects the authors' intellectual property. Uploading a manuscript to a third-party AI tool constitutes a breach of confidentiality and may inadvertently feed the author’s original work into a public model. Reviewers are expected to adhere to the TITAN 2025 standards, which emphasise transparency and human validation.
Adherence to COPE and ethical conduct
Reviewers are reminded of their role as guardians of scientific integrity. This involves identifying potential issues such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or the use of unauthorised non-original figures. The journal allows a maximum of two non-original figures per paper, and only if written permission from the original publisher is provided. If a reviewer suspects that these rules are being circumvented, they are encouraged to highlight this in their report.
Phase three: the technical heart of the review process
Once the guidelines are reviewed and the reviewer proceeds, the workflow enters "Step 3: Download & Review." This is where the core analytical work takes place.
Accessing the manuscript and supporting files
The portal provides a list of files available for review. For Fracture and Structural Integrity, the primary manuscript is typically a Microsoft Word (.docx) file prepared according to a strict journal template. In many cases, authors also provide supplementary materials, such as high-resolution images of fracture surfaces, FEA animations, or data sets. The reviewer downloads these files to their local environment for detailed study.
The evaluation criteria for structural integrity research
The reviewer’s task is to provide a balanced critique that addresses several key dimensions of the submission:
1. Originality and innovation: Does the work provide a significant advancement in the understanding of fracture or fatigue?
2. Methodological soundness: Are the experimental setups, numerical simulations, or analytical derivations scientifically valid and reproducible?
3. Clarity of communication: Is the paper written in clear English, and does it follow the narrative structure required by the journal?
4. Integration of visuals: Are the figures and tables effective in conveying the data? If the paper includes audio or video files, do they enhance the manuscript’s value?
Navigating the review form and communication channels
The OJS portal provides two distinct text boxes for the reviewer's findings:
● Comments for Author and Editor: This section should contain a detailed, constructive analysis of the paper. It is visible to the authors and serves as their primary guide for revisions.
● Comments for Editor Only: This is a confidential space where the reviewer can share sensitive concerns, such as suspicions of ethical misconduct or doubts about the paper's suitability that are not appropriate for the author's eyes.
In addition to these text fields, the reviewer can use the "Review Discussion" panel. This tool is essential for clarifying questions with the editorial office, such as requesting additional data from the authors or discussing technical issues with the manuscript file.
Uploading anonymised marked-up files
Many reviewers prefer to provide a version of the manuscript with track changes or comments directly in the text. The portal allows uploading these "Reviewer Files". However, the reviewer must be diligent in stripping personal identification from the document properties to maintain the "blind" nature of the process.
Phase four: the recommendation and finality
After the evaluation is complete, the reviewer must select a formal recommendation from a dropdown menu. This selection is the primary indicator used by the Editor in Chief to determine the manuscript's fate.
● Accept Submission: The paper is outstanding and requires no changes; it proceeds to publishing.
● Revisions Required: Minor corrections are needed; the editor usually verifies these without a second review round.
● Resubmit for Review: Major changes are required; a second, mandatory round of peer review will follow.
● Resubmit Elsewhere: The research is sound but better suited for a different journal’s scope.
● Decline Submission: The manuscript has fatal flaws or lacks the necessary originality for publication.
Completion and confirmation
In "Step 4: Completion," the reviewer reviews their entered data and files one last time. Clicking "Submit Review" and confirming in the subsequent pop-up window finalises the process. The submission is then locked, and the editor is notified that the task is complete.