PUBLISHING AND REVIEW PROCEDURE

Production Engineering Archives (PEA) applies an independent double-blind peer-review process designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality and integrity of published research.
All submissions are handled in accordance with the Editorial and Publication Policy of Production Engineering Archives. Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological soundness, relevance and compliance with research-integrity and publication-ethics requirements.
Submission > Initial Check > Peer Review > Revision > Editorial Decision > Production > Publication

1. SUBMISSION
Manuscripts must be submitted electronically through the Submit Manuscript system and prepared in accordance with the Journal's current manuscript template and Instructions for Authors.
By submitting a manuscript, the authors confirm that:
• the work is original and is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere;
• all authors have approved the manuscript and consent to its submission;
• authorship and affiliations are accurate;
• relevant funding and competing interests are disclosed;
• ethical approval and informed consent are reported where applicable;
• a Data Availability Statement is included for original research articles in accordance with the Journal's Editorial and Publication Policy;
• any material use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies is disclosed in accordance with the Journal's AI policy;
• all necessary permissions for third-party material have been obtained.
PEA accepts manuscripts previously posted on recognised preprint platforms or institutional repositories, provided that the previous dissemination is disclosed at submission and applicable copyright and licensing requirements are satisfied. Other forms of prior dissemination are considered in accordance with the Journal's Editorial and Publication Policy.

2. INITIAL CHECK
Each submission undergoes an initial technical and editorial assessment before external peer review.
The Editorial Office checks the manuscript for completeness and compliance with the Journal's formal requirements.
An editor then evaluates:
• compatibility with the Journal's Aims and Scope;
• scientific relevance and originality;
• methodological quality;
• clarity and completeness of presentation;
• compliance with publication-ethics and research-integrity requirements.
Manuscripts may also be screened using appropriate similarity-detection and research-integrity tools.
The Journal may request additional documentation, including research data, original images, ethical approvals, statistical outputs, code or information concerning the use of artificial intelligence.
Manuscripts that are outside the Journal's scope, do not meet the required scientific standard or raise unresolved ethical or integrity concerns may be rejected without external peer review.

3. PEER REVIEW
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise who are not part of the Journal's editorial team, under a double-blind peer-review model.
Reviewers are selected by the editor on the basis of:
• relevant scientific expertise;
• independence and impartiality;
• absence of significant conflicts of interest;
• appropriate research experience in the subject area.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, reviewer suggestions are not binding and the final selection is made exclusively by the editor.
Reviewers assess, as appropriate:
• originality and scientific contribution;
• methodological soundness;
• validity and reliability of the results;
• quality of analysis and interpretation;
• relevance of the literature;
• clarity of presentation;
• compliance with ethical and research-integrity standards.
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal advantage or upload confidential materials to public or unsecured generative-AI systems.
Reviewer reports are confidential and are not published with the article. Supplementary materials forming part of the scientific evidence may be made available to reviewers and assessed as part of the peer-review process. Any content not subject to the Journal's standard peer-review procedure will be clearly identified.
Generative AI must not be used by reviewers or editors to perform the substantive scientific assessment of a manuscript or to determine an editorial recommendation or decision.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.
Where reviewer reports are conflicting or additional expertise is required, the editor may seek an additional independent review.

4. REVISION
Where revisions are requested, authors receive the reviewers' and editor's comments and are expected to submit:
• a revised manuscript with the changes clearly indicated; and
• a structured point-by-point Response to Reviewers.
Authors should address each substantive comment. Where they disagree with a reviewer, they may provide a reasoned scientific justification.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
More than one round of revision may be required.
All communication between authors and reviewers is conducted through the Editorial Office.

5. EDITORIAL DECISION
The final decision is made under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors' responses and compliance with the Journal's scientific and ethical standards.
Possible decisions are:
• Accept;
• Minor Revision;
• Major Revision;
• Reject with an invitation to submit a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission;
• Reject.
Reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the editorial decision.
Editorial decisions are independent of authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, commercial relationships, Article Processing Charges or potential effects on Journal metrics.
Where an editor has a relevant conflict of interest, the manuscript is transferred to an independent editor.
Manuscripts submitted by editors or members of the Editorial Board are handled independently and without preferential treatment.

6. ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGE AND PRODUCTION
Article Processing Charges (APCs) are requested only after a manuscript has been formally accepted for publication.
Payment or non-payment of an APC has no influence on reviewer selection, peer review, scientific assessment or the editorial decision.
Following acceptance, the manuscript enters production, which may include:
• language and copy editing;
• technical preparation and typesetting;
• verification of figures, tables, references and metadata;
• preparation of the final Version of Record.
The corresponding author receives the final version for verification before publication.

7. PUBLICATION
Following completion of production, the article is published as the Version of Record.
The dates of manuscript submission, acceptance and publication are displayed with the published Version of Record.
The publication process includes:
• assignment and registration of a DOI;
• publication on the Journal's platform;
• preparation and distribution of bibliographic metadata;
• submission to relevant indexing and abstracting services.
Production Engineering Archives operates under a full Open Access model. Authors retain copyright, and articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0).

COMPLAINTS, APPEALS AND POST-PUBLICATION MATTERS
Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a material factual error, procedural problem, overlooked information or significant misunderstanding affected the decision.
Complaints concerning editorial procedures, reviewer or editor conduct, publication ethics, research integrity, discrimination, conflicts of interest or published content may be submitted to the Editorial Office or Editor-in-Chief.
PEA is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Where necessary, the Journal may issue corrections, Expressions of Concern or retractions, or remove published content in exceptional circumstances, in accordance with its Editorial and Publication Policy and relevant COPE guidance.
Detailed provisions concerning publication ethics, research integrity, authorship, competing interests, artificial intelligence, peer-review ethics, complaints, appeals, corrections and retractions are provided in the Editorial and Publication Policy of Production Engineering Archives.

Review form https: https://www.pea-journal.eu/review.html

Production Engineering Archives

About the journal

Editors-in-chief

All volumes and issues in this journal

Volume 32 (2026)

Volume 31 (2025)

Volume 30 (2024)

Volume 29 (2023)

Volume 28 (2022)

Volume 27 (2021)

Volume 26 (2020)

Volume 25 (2019)

Volume 24 (2019)

Volume 23 (2019)

Volume 22 (2019)

Volume 21 (2018)

Volume 20 (2018)

Volume 19 (2018)

Volume 18 (2018)

Volume 17 (2017)

Volume 16 (2017)

Volume 15 (2017)

Volume 14 (2017)

Journal details