Editorial Workflow

Every manuscript submitted to the Arashi Journal of Metals & Material Sciences undergoes the following peer review process:

Initial Manuscript Evaluation:

  • The editorial office checks the manuscript's suitability for the peer review process.
  • The manuscript is assigned to an appropriate editor based on subject and editor availability.
  • Editors must avoid conflicts of interest with any manuscript's authors.

Editor Handles the Manuscript:

The Editor evaluates each manuscript to determine if the research conducted aligns with the journal's aims and scope. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if:

  • The research is outside the journal's scope.
  • The article lacks scientific rigor or is too general.
  • The research is poorly presented, with unclear methods and findings.
  • The language quality is poor, or the content is plagiarized.

Peer Review Process:

Manuscripts meeting the minimum criteria are sent to at least two experts for review without conflicts of interest by the Editor. The process is double anonymous, meaning neither reviewers nor authors know each other's identities.

Reviewer Reports and Recommendations:

Reviewers submit their reports and recommend one of the following actions:

  • Publish unaltered
  • Consider after minor changes
  • Consider after major changes
  • Reject

Editorial Recommendations:

Based on reviewer reports, the editor can recommend:

  • Publish unaltered
  • Consider after minor changes
  • Consider after major changes
  • Reject

Post-Review Actions:

  • Publish unaltered: The manuscript will undergo a final check by the journal's editorial office to ensure adherence to guidelines before acceptance notification to authors.
  • Consider after minor changes: Authors prepare a final manuscript incorporating minor revisions suggested by reviewers. Editor reviews and can accept if satisfactory.
  • Consider after major changes: Authors revise manuscript according to recommendations, resubmitting for review. Editors decide based on revised manuscript and reviewer feedback.
  • Reject: Immediate decision if editor or majority of reviewers recommend rejection.

Quality Assurance:

Editors cannot serve as external reviewers for their assigned manuscripts, ensuring a fair and unbiased review process. This system ensures only genuine, high-quality research is published.

Online Manuscript Tracking System:

The entire editorial workflow is managed using an online manuscript tracking system, ensuring efficiency and transparency from submission to publication.