Peer Review Policy

The review process is highly confidential, objective, and thorough. 

On behalf of the journal, the Editor-in-Chief, assistant editors, and technical editor participate in the review process. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the status of the article. The assistant editor conducts the review process, recommends the final decision on the status of the submitted manuscript, and assists the Editor-in-Chief on all issues related to the review process. The technical editor provides all administrative support to maintain the integrity of the review process and the speed and efficiency of the publishing process.

All scientific research papers submitted to the Journal are reviewed by the editorial board that checks the relevance of the manuscript to the themes covered by the journal, its research importance, and other usual requirements. If these requirements are not met, the Editor-in-Chief rejects the submitted manuscript. Alternatively, the manuscripts are passed to the assistant editor for further action. The assistant editor handles the manuscript through the entire review process, including making a recommendation for the final decision on accepting the paper for publication. If one of the editors is also the author or involved in a possible conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript, then the review process is performed by another member of the editorial board. The journal will give priority to quality papers aiming at a wide audience and those having a possibly greater impact on engineering in the future. All papers appropriate for ENGMOD, in terms of subject matter, language, ethical standards, quality, and following all social norms, will be subject to a review process by at least two qualified experts. The selection of reviewers is based on various criteria such as expertise, personal recommendation, or prior knowledge of the editorial board about the reviewer's qualifications. Also, the editor ensures that both reviewers do not work at the same university or at least the same institution. The Journal strives to minimise the time for decisions on the status of the submitted manuscript, but it mainly depends on the availability of qualified reviewers. For this reason, at the time of manuscript submission, the author is to propose three potential reviewers without any possible conflict of interest. Reviewers are given 30 days to complete the review and complete the review form. It is recognised that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. Then, the editor can decide to publish the manuscript based on just one review that must meet all the usual requirements. Timeliness, thoroughness, reasonable explanations of the comments and collegiality are highly advisable. Reviewers are encouraged to adhere to the review principles suggested by COPE. In case of any conflict of interest, reviewers must notify the editor before accepting the review invitation. All communication between the editor and the reviewer is strictly confidential and must not be discussed with other persons. If papers presented at various conferences, workshops, and similar events are submitted, the editorial board will accept such manuscripts from the program committees of the conference, if they have passed a review process, meet the standards set by the journal, and are not previously published in the same form within the conference proceedings.

Reviewers' reports must be written in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. The editor’s decision is predominantly based on thorough review comments, not on short or superficial ones that cannot be a valuable contribution to making final decisions.

All decisions of assistant editors are confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief.  The decision is based on collected review forms, the scientific and technical soundness of the paper in terms of appropriate methodology, and the above-mentioned correctness of the presented results as well as the appropriateness of conclusions.

The final decision sent to authors is accompanied by the reviewer reports and the commentary from the editor that explains it. If the decision involves revision for the author, the required changes must be precisely specified in the decision letter and review reports. The author can then respond to each of these requests in a cover letter.

The following outcomes of the review process are possible:

1. Accept without any changes (acceptance): the manuscript is published in its original form.
2. Accept with minor changes (acceptance): the manuscript will be published, provided that the authors make small corrections. Authors are required to submit the revised paper within 30-45 days. If the editor estimates that the corrections are not satisfactory, the same reviewers may be asked for additional evaluation.
3. Accept with major changes (conditional acceptance): the manuscript will be published, provided that the authors meet all the requirements set by reviewers and editors. Authors are required to submit the revised paper within 60-90 days, and reviewers make a new evaluation.
4. Reject the paper (outright rejection): the manuscript will not be published or reconsidered even if the authors make significant changes.

The Editor-in-Chief decides to accept, reject, or request changes based on the reviews received and his assessment.

An appeal is possible when the authors consider that the Editor-in-Chief's decision to reject the submitted manuscript is based on wrong or incorrect information and that the manuscript deserves reconsideration. It may include, for example, a proven factual mistake in the review report or a previously undetermined bias of the reviewer, and more. In the letter of complaint, sent to engmod@gradst.hr, it is necessary to state why the authors believe that the wrong decision was made and to write a detailed response to the reviewer's claims, which they consider to be the main reason for the rejection. Immediate rejections (those made by the editorial board without a review process) can be reconsidered only if further information is provided, offering a new perspective, or explaining points not sufficiently clarified in the cover letter. The decision to consider the appeal is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the assistant editors. Considering an appeal does not mean accepting it. If the appeal is found justified, the paper is sent for re-review to the same or new reviewers, or the editor may decide to invite a revised manuscript.