Peer Review Policy
Central Asian Transactions on Materials Structure and Properties
1. General Principles
Central Asian Transactions on Materials Structure and Properties is a peer-reviewed open-access journal published in the Republic of Kazakhstan. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and relevance of published articles.
The peer review process is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of academic publishing ethics and best editorial practices.
2. Type of Peer Review
The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, in which:
- the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers;
- the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
This approach is intended to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and the elimination of potential conflicts of interest.
3. Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether it:
- falls within the scope of the journal;
- meets basic quality, formatting, and language requirements;
- complies with the journal’s ethical standards and publication policies.
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external peer review.
4. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts passing the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers, with relevant expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- academic qualifications and research experience;
- publication record in relevant fields;
- absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.
Where appropriate, reviewers from different institutions and countries may be invited to ensure a balanced and international perspective.
5. Review Process
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:
- originality and scientific contribution;
- methodological soundness and validity of results;
- clarity of presentation and structure;
- relevance to the journal’s scope;
- adequacy of references and engagement with current literature.
Reviewers provide written reports and make one of the following recommendations:
- accept without revision;
- accept with minor revisions;
- reconsider after major revisions;
- reject.
6. Editorial Decision
The final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Academic Editor, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and recommendations.
In cases of conflicting reviews, additional reviewers may be invited.
7. Revision and Resubmission
Authors are required to address all reviewers’ comments in a revised manuscript and submit a detailed response explaining how the comments were addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
Failure to adequately respond to reviewers’ comments may result in rejection.
8. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts and peer review materials are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use unpublished information from the manuscripts for personal or professional purposes.
9. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their evaluation. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be replaced.
10. Ethical Compliance
The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of academic misconduct. Manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism detection tools. Suspected ethical violations are handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy and relevant international guidelines.
11. Peer Review Timeline
The journal aims to ensure a timely review process. While review timelines may vary depending on the subject area and availability of reviewers, the Editorial Office makes reasonable efforts to complete the initial review within 4–6 weeks.
12. Acknowledgement of Reviewers
The journal recognizes the essential contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining academic quality. Reviewers may be acknowledged periodically, while preserving reviewer anonymity.