1. General Responsibilities

• Conduct an objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field of mechanics.
• Provide timely, constructive, and professional feedback to the authors.
• Maintain confidentiality regarding the review process and manuscript content.
• Identify ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest.
• Refrain from using any unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript for personal research.

2. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

• All manuscripts are considered confidential documents, and reviewers must not share them with anyone outside the editorial team.
• If a reviewer is unable to complete the review due to a conflict of interest, they must immediately notify the editor and decline the assignment.
• Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors in a double-blind review process and must evaluate the manuscript based solely on its content.
• Any suspicion of academic misconduct should be reported to the editorial office immediately.

3. Criteria for Evaluating Manuscripts

3.1 Scientific Quality

• Is the research problem well-defined, and does the manuscript contribute new knowledge to the field of mechanics.
• Are the research objectives, hypotheses, and methodologies presented and appropriate.
• Are the findings statistically sound, and do they adequately support the conclusions?
• Are figures, tables, and equations relevant, clear, and properly labelled.
• Is the discussion section logical and critical, relating findings to previous literature.

3.2 Originality and Significance

• Does the manuscript present novel ideas, methods, or applications.
• Does it advance the theory, modeling, simulation, or experimental techniques in mechanics.
• Is it relevant to researchers and professionals in mechanics, engineering, and applied sciences.

3.3 Clarity and Organization

• Is the manuscript well-structured, with a logical flow from introduction to conclusion.
• Are the figures, tables, and references appropriately used and formatted.
• Is the language clear, concise, and grammatically sound? If not, does it require minor or major English editing.

3.4 Ethical and Compliance Checks

• Is there any indication of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data falsification.
• Does the study adhere to ethical guidelines (e.g., human/animal research compliance, funding disclosures, conflict of interest statements).
• Are all sources properly cited, and is the reference list complete and formatted correctly.

4. Providing Constructive Feedback

• Clearly explain major and minor concerns, specifying sections and issues that need improvement.
• Provide specific suggestions for improvement instead of vague comments.
• Use polite and professional language, avoiding personal criticism.
• Recommend whether the manuscript should be:

• Accepted as is (rare cases).
• Accepted with minor revisions (minor grammatical or formatting issues).
• Revised and resubmitted (significant improvements required).
• Rejected (major flaws, lack of originality, or ethical concerns).

5. Timeliness and Review Process

• Reviewers are expected to complete the review within 2–4 weeks after accepting the invitation.
• If a reviewer needs an extension, they should inform the editorial office immediately.
• If a reviewer cannot complete the review, they should decline the invitation as soon as possible.

6. Post-Review Responsibilities

• Reviewers may be asked to evaluate a revised manuscript and should check if authors have addressed their comments.
• Maintain confidentiality even after the review process is complete.

7. Recognition and Benefits

• Reviewers will receive acknowledgment for their contributions (unless they opt to remain anonymous).
• Regular reviewers will receive certificates of appreciation for their service.