Editorial Policy

Peer Review Policy

Peer-reviewed articles are fundamental to the advancement of credible, high-quality scientific knowledge. Kertas of Materials and Manufacturing Science (KMMS) upholds rigorous peer-review standards to ensure the integrity and academic contribution of every published article.

KMMS employs a single-blind peer review process, where reviewers remain anonymous, but authors’ identities are disclosed to reviewers.

Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission undergoes a preliminary review by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors to assess:

  • Scope and alignment with KMMS topics

  • Originality and scientific novelty

  • Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines

Only manuscripts that meet these basic requirements are advanced to the peer review stage.

Peer Review Process

  • At least two independent expert reviewers are assigned based on subject-area expertise.

  • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

    • Originality: Does the study offer novel insights or methodologies?

    • Significance: Are the results meaningful and well-substantiated?

    • Structure & Format: Is the manuscript organized and compliant with KMMS author guidelines?

    • Relevance: Is the content valuable to KMMS’s scientific community?

    • Language Quality: Is the English scholarly and precise?

    • Overall Merit: Does the work demonstrate scientific rigor and contribute to its field?

  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling submissions with which they have a conflict of interest, such as:

    • Personal relationships

    • Co-authorship

    • Institutional affiliation

    • Financial or commercial ties

    In such cases, the manuscript is reassigned to an independent editorial representative.

Review Outcomes

After peer review, the Editor-in-Chief may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept as is – No revisions needed (rare)

  • Accept with minor revisions – Minor editorial improvements requested

  • Accept after major revisions – Substantive changes required in methods, data, or structure

  • Revise and resubmit – Considered again only after significant revision

  • Reject – Not suitable due to fundamental flaws or lack of contribution

All reviewer comments are vetted by the editorial team. Inappropriate language or confidential remarks are removed. Sensitive reviewer feedback may be shared only with the editorial team and not the author.

Editorial Discretion

  • Editors or Editorial Board members may serve as reviewers for submissions within their field, provided no conflict of interest exists.

  • The Editor-in-Chief may consult additional experts when needed to inform the final decision.

  • Final decisions are made based on:

    • Reviewers’ recommendations

    • Quality of author revisions

    • Contribution to the field of materials and manufacturing science

Review Process Flowchart