Fatigue of Aircraft Structures

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the review process. They are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices, including standards concerning confidentiality, conflicts of interest, objectivity, and the reporting of suspected misconduct. Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage. They must objectively assess the scientific quality of a manuscript on its own merits, respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers should avoid conflicts of interest and disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts that could affect their impartiality. If a reviewer believes that a conflict of interest exists, they should decline the review assignment and inform the Editorial Office accordingly. Reviewers must provide clear, complete, and well-reasoned explanations for their recommendations, particularly when recommending rejection or substantial revision of a manuscript. They should also promptly notify the Editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and other published or submitted works of which they are aware.

Role and Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are specialists in the field related to the publication and are selected by the Editor-in-Chief based on their academic credentials, including a minimum requirement of holding a PhD degree. The selection process ensures that reviewers possess the expertise necessary to provide a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.

Review Process

Upon receiving a manuscript, which is anonymized to maintain the integrity of the review process, reviewers assess their ability to undertake the review both in terms of content expertise and within the proposed deadline. The Editorial Board typically sets a review period of no longer than 30 calendar days. Reviewers are expected to adhere to this timeline; however, if a delay is anticipated, they are required to inform the Editorial Board promptly.

Review Form and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts through the Editorial System, which automatically generates and sends an email invitation containing a link to the manuscript and the review form. The review form is intended to support reviewers in preparing a detailed and structured assessment of the submitted work. In exceptional cases, the review form and manuscript may also be provided directly by the Editorial Secretary via email.

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers consider several aspects, including the validity, originality, and scientific value of the work, the appropriateness of the methodology applied, and the contribution of the publication to the current state of research. Reviewers are also asked to assess the quality and relevance of the bibliography, the independence and coherence of the presented argumentation, and to identify any potential forms of scientific misconduct, including plagiarism or unreliable citations.

In addition, reviewers evaluate the correct use of specialized terminology, the clarity and comprehensibility of the text, and the overall quality of the manuscript in terms of scientific and editorial standards.

Review Outcomes

The review should culminate in a clear conclusion regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Reviewers must indicate on the review form one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept as written with no need for any revisions
2. Accept with minor revisions with no second review necessary
3. Accept with minor revisions and continue with a second review
4. Require major revisions and allow text to reviewed again if resubmitted
5. Do not accept for publication

Each Reviewer also provides detailed grounds for this decision, specifically indicating what revisions the Reviewer feels are necessary before the manuscript can be published.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers are bound to maintain the confidentiality of the content of the reviewed manuscript and their evaluation of it. They must not disclose, share, distribute, or discuss any aspect of the manuscript with unauthorized persons. Information obtained through peer review may not be used for personal advantage, research purposes, or the disadvantage of others.

If reviewers identify possible ethical concerns, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, citation manipulation, authorship disputes, or any other form of research or publication misconduct, they should immediately inform the Editor. In such cases, the journal may follow the relevant COPE Core Practices, COPE flowcharts, and applicable COPE case studies when investigating and resolving the matter.

The journal particularly recognizes the principles set out in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the COPE Core Practices on Peer Review Processes, Conflicts of Interest, and Allegations of Misconduct, and expects all reviewers to adhere to these standards throughout the review process.