Peer Review Policy and Guidelines for Reviewers

Journal of Sustainable Smart Materials and Structural Systems is committed to a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer review process that supports the integrity and quality of scholarly publishing. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated according to their scholarly merit, methodological soundness, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and ethical standards. Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by the authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, seniority, or personal characteristics.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal’s scope and meets basic requirements for scholarly quality, ethical compliance, originality, presentation, and submission completeness. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or raise substantial ethical or integrity concerns may be declined before external peer review.

An initial editorial assessment does not constitute a judgement on the ultimate scientific merit of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor determines whether a manuscript proceeds to peer review.

Peer Review Model

The journal uses a double-anonymized peer review process, in which both reviewer’s and authors’ identities are not disclosed to each other.

All reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the designated editor of the manuscript based on relevant subject expertise, methodological knowledge, publication experience, and familiarity with the research area. Editors may consider recommendations from authors, editorial board members, or other qualified scholars when identifying potential reviewers, but reviewer selection remains the responsibility of the editor.

Editors should seek reviewers who are sufficiently independent from the authors and who can provide an impartial assessment. Excessive reliance on a small group of reviewers should be avoided where practicable.

Authors may identify individuals whom they believe should not review their manuscript because of a potential conflict of interest. Such requests should be accompanied by a reasonable explanation. The final decision regarding reviewer selection rests with the editor.

Number and Quality of Reviews

The number of reviewers may vary according to the manuscript type, subject area, methodological complexity, and editorial requirements. Ordinarily, research articles are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers, although the editor may seek additional assessments when reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, specialized expertise is required, or concerns arise regarding the manuscript.

A reviewer recommendation is advisory. The editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision and is not required to follow a reviewer’s recommendation.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • assess manuscripts objectively, fairly, and independently;
  • evaluate the quality, originality, significance, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance of the work;
  • identify important weaknesses, unsupported conclusions, methodological limitations, or missing relevant literature;
  • distinguish major concerns from minor corrections;
  • provide constructive comments that can help authors improve their manuscript;
  • disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
  • maintain the confidentiality of all information contained in the manuscript;
  • avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research or professional advantage;
  • notify the editor if they lack sufficient expertise to review the manuscript;
  • decline the assignment if they cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe;
  • alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, or other potential research-integrity concerns; and
  • provide their recommendation through the journal’s designated submission system.

Reviewers should not make discriminatory, hostile, defamatory, or personally directed comments. Criticism should address the research rather than the authors.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with others without permission from the responsible editor.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality. Conflicts may include recent collaboration, institutional relationships, personal or professional relationships, financial interests, direct academic competition, supervisory relationships, or other circumstances that could compromise independent assessment.

Having a potential conflict does not necessarily imply misconduct. However, reviewers should inform the editor so that the editor can determine whether reassignment is appropriate.

Editors should likewise identify and appropriately manage their own conflicts of interest. An editor should not handle a manuscript where they have a significant personal, professional, financial, or institutional interest in its outcome.

Reviewer Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload or submit confidential manuscript content, including unpublished text, data, figures, tables, or supplementary materials, to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence or other external AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly judgement. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, originality, and appropriateness of their review.

Reviewers should disclose significant use of AI tools. AI systems must not be credited as reviewers.

Evaluation Criteria

Depending on the article type, reviewers may be asked to consider:

  • originality and contribution to existing knowledge;
  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • clarity of the research question or objectives;
  • appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
  • validity and reliability of the analysis;
  • adequacy and interpretation of results;
  • whether conclusions are supported by the evidence;
  • appropriate engagement with relevant literature;
  • clarity and organization of the manuscript;
  • ethical approval, consent, data protection, or other research-ethics requirements where applicable;
  • transparency and reproducibility of methods and data where appropriate;
  • appropriate reporting of limitations;
  • originality and appropriate attribution of material; and
  • overall scholarly significance.

Review criteria may be adapted for review articles, theoretical papers, case reports, methodological papers, editorials, or other article types.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the editor may make one of several decisions, including:

Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes or only minor editorial adjustments.

Minor Revision: limited changes are required before publication.

Major Revision: substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further assessment.

Reject and Resubmit: the manuscript requires substantial redevelopment and may be considered as a new submission, subject to journal policy.

Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

The editor considers the reviewers’ reports together with the manuscript, journal standards, ethical considerations, and other relevant information. A decision may differ from an individual reviewer’s recommendation where the editor considers that appropriate.

Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should provide a clear response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a requested change has not been made, authors should provide a reasoned explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to new reviewers, or assessed solely by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

Repeated rounds of revision may be undertaken when necessary to achieve appropriate scholarly and ethical standards, although the editor may decline further revision where the manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient progress.

Reviewer Disagreement

Reviewers may reasonably reach different conclusions about the same manuscript. Where reports substantially conflict, the editor may seek an additional independent review or undertake further assessment before reaching a decision.

The journal does not determine editorial decisions by simply counting on reviewer recommendations. The quality and substance of the reviews, together with the editor’s independent assessment, are considered.

Timeliness

The journal seeks to maintain an efficient review process while allowing reviewers adequate time to conduct a meaningful assessment. Reviewers who anticipate delays should inform the editor as soon as possible.

The journal may replace reviewers who repeatedly fail to respond, miss agreed deadlines without communication, or provide reviews that do not meet the required scholarly standard.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict of interest, or demonstrably inappropriate aspect of the review process materially affected the decision.

Appeals should provide specific and substantive grounds rather than simply disagreeing with the reviewers’ conclusions. Appeals are considered by the responsible editor or another appropriate senior editor who was not directly involved in the original decision, where practicable.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision. The journal’s decision following an appropriate appeal review is normally final.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, or publication ethics will be handled confidentially and investigated in accordance with the journal’s applicable publication-ethics procedures.

Peer Review Misconduct

The journal takes peer review manipulation and other forms of review misconduct seriously. Concerns may include fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent reviewer reports, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorized disclosure of manuscripts, inappropriate use of confidential information, coercive citation practices, plagiarism of unpublished material, or attempts to improperly influence editorial decisions.

Where credible concerns arise, the journal may suspend the review or publication process while an investigation is conducted. Appropriate action may include reviewer removal, manuscript rejection, correction or retraction of published material, notification of relevant institutions, or other measures considered appropriate under established publication-ethics principles.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations. Editors and reviewers must not allow commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional pressures, political considerations, or other external influences to determine the outcome of peer review.

The publisher, Open Horizon Global, provides the infrastructure and administrative support required for publication but does not interfere with independent editorial decisions concerning the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.

Post-Publication Review

Peer review does not guarantee that a published article is free from error. Following publication, the journal may investigate credible concerns relating to the validity, integrity, authorship, ethics, or reporting of published work.

Where necessary, the journal may publish corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other editorial notices in accordance with its publication-ethics procedures.

Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the scholarly contribution of peer reviewers. Where appropriate and consistent with confidentiality requirements, the journal may provide reviewers with certificates, acknowledgements, or other forms of recognition. Any recognition system will not compromise reviewer anonymity or confidentiality.

Editorial and Ethical Standards

The journal expects all participants in peer review—including editors, reviewers, and authors—to comply with recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing. The journal may update its peer review procedures when necessary to reflect developments in research integrity, publishing technology, data transparency, artificial intelligence, and international publication-ethics standards.

The journal reserves the right to modify its peer review procedures for particular article types or circumstances where doing so is necessary to protect the integrity, fairness, and quality of the scholarly record.