Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica operates a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers know the identities of the authors, whereas the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Initial editorial assessment
After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated with regard to its relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, scientific quality and originality, compliance with the journal's requirements, language quality, and overall presentation.
Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, do not meet basic scientific or editorial standards, or do not comply with the journal's requirements may be rejected without external review or returned to the authors for correction.
External peer review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript. At least one of the reviewers should be affiliated with a research institution in a country different from that of the author(s).
The reviewers are asked to assess, in particular:
the originality and scientific contribution of the manuscript,
the soundness and appropriateness of the methodology,
the validity and interpretation of the results,
the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the results,
the adequacy and relevance of the references,
the clarity, structure, and quality of presentation,
the relevance of the manuscript to the scope of the journal.
Reviewers provide written reports and recommendations concerning the suitability of the manuscript for publication. On the basis of the reviews, the manuscript may be accepted, returned to the authors for minor or major revision, or rejected.
Reviewers are normally asked to submit their reviews within approximately four weeks. The journal aims to complete the peer-review and editorial decision process within approximately 16 weeks. The actual duration may vary depending on the availability of suitable reviewers, the extent of revisions required, and the need for additional review.
Revision and editorial decision
When revisions are required, authors are asked to submit a revised version of the manuscript in which all changes are clearly indicated using coloured text. A separate response document must also be submitted through Editorial Manager, addressing each of the reviewers' comments individually and explaining how the manuscript has been revised. If an author does not follow a particular reviewer recommendation, the reason should be clearly explained in the response. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
In the case of conflicting reviewer recommendations, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' comments and the strength of the arguments supporting their recommendations. If both reviews provide well-founded but substantially different assessments of the manuscript, an additional independent reviewer may be invited. An additional review is not required where the editor considers that the available reviews provide sufficient grounds for an editorial decision.
The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor, taking into account the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, and the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest when responding to the review invitation in Editorial Manager. A reviewer who has a conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment should decline the review invitation.
A conflict of interest may include, but is not limited to:
personal or family relationships with the authors,
professional or institutional dependencies,
recent direct research collaboration with the authors.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose or discuss the manuscript or use unpublished information contained in it for purposes unrelated to the peer-review process.
Reviewer anonymity
The identities of reviewers of individual manuscripts are not disclosed to the authors. The journal may publish a collective list of reviewers who have contributed to the peer-review process without identifying the manuscripts they reviewed.