Review process

Phase 1: Submission and Initial Evaluation

Manuscript Submission: The author(s) submit their article through the EASI platform, ensuring that it complies with all formatting, length, and editorial policy requirements.

Editorial Review: The editor-in-chief evaluates the manuscript to determine whether:

  • It fits the scope and topics of the journal.
  • It complies with basic ethical standards (originality, no plagiarism, etc.).
  • It has the minimum formal and scientific quality to be considered.
  • Result: If it does not meet these criteria, the manuscript is immediately rejected without undergoing peer review.

Phase 2: Selection of Reviewers

Search for Suitable Reviewers: If it passes phase 1, the editor identifies and contacts potential reviewers (usually 2 or 3).

  • Selection Criteria: They are experts in the specific area of the article (e.g., composite materials, applied artificial intelligence, computational fluid dynamics) with previous publications in the field.
  • Impartiality: It is verified that there are no conflicts of interest with the authors.

Acceptance by Reviewers: The invited experts receive a request with the title and abstract of the article. If they accept the review, they are given a deadline (usually 2 to 4 weeks) to submit their report.

Phase 3: Peer Review

Peer Review: Reviewers analyze the manuscript in depth anonymously using a double-blind model. They evaluate critical aspects:

  • Originality and Innovation: Does it contribute new knowledge?
  • Scientific and Technical Validity: Is the methodology sound? Are the experiments or simulations well designed? Do the data support the conclusions?
  • Relevance: Is it important to the field of engineering?
  • Writing Quality and Clarity: Is it well written and organized?
  • Bibliographic References: Are they appropriate and current?

Report Preparation: Each reviewer prepares a detailed report for the editor and authors that includes:

  • Confidential Comments for the Editor: An overall assessment and recommendation.
  • Comments for the Authors: Constructive criticism, specific questions, and suggestions for improvement, point by point.

Phase 4: Editorial Decision

Evaluation of Reports and Decision: The editor in charge analyzes all the reviewers' reports, along with their own evaluation, and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accepted Without Changes: The article is published as is.
  • Accepted with Minor Changes: Minor corrections are required. The authors must respond to the comments and submit a revised version.
  • Major Revision Required: The article has merit but needs substantial modifications. It must be resubmitted and is usually returned to the same reviewers for a new evaluation.
  • Rejected: The article has serious deficiencies that cannot be remedied by revision.

Communication to Authors: The editor notifies the authors of their decision, attaching the reviewers' reports (usually …

Phase 5: Revision and Finalization

Authors' Response (in case of revision):

  • The authors prepare a revised version of the manuscript.
  • They send a detailed response letter (“response letter” or “rebuttal letter”), in which they respond to each of the reviewers' comments, explaining the changes made to the text or justifying why a suggested change was not made.

Re-evaluation:

  • The editor sends the revision and response letter to the original reviewers for verification.
    After this second round, the editor makes the final decision.

Final Acceptance and Editing:

  • Once the manuscript is accepted, it is sent to the journal's production team for style correction, layout, and online publication.
    Authors must review the final proofs (“galley proofs”) to detect any typographical or formatting errors before official publication.