Editorial Screening

Every submission is first screened by the editors for scope, originality and compliance with the Guide for Authors and the journal template. Manuscripts that do not meet these baseline requirements may be returned or rejected without external review.

 

Single-Anonymised Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass screening undergo single-anonymised peer review: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors are not told who reviewed their work. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in its subject.

The handling Associate Editor makes a recommendation based on the reviews, and the Editors-in-Chief take the final decision. Editors do not handle manuscripts on which they are an author or have a competing interest; such manuscripts are assigned to another editor.

 

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess each manuscript on the following points.

Technical quality. The work must be technically sound and free of errors. A novel method is not required, but the paper must offer clear value, such as validated best practice, an industrial case study or experimental data.

Clarity. The engineering problem, the approach taken and the conclusions must be clearly stated, with an informative abstract and introduction.

Relevance. The topic must fall within the technical areas of the NAFEMS Working Groups.

Originality. Reviewers flag any suspicion that the work has already been published elsewhere in a similar form. Extended versions of NAFEMS conference papers are accepted when the earlier version is disclosed.

Commercial neutrality. Papers must not have a commercial tone, and software or hardware names must not appear in the title. Vendor submissions are welcome when they explain the underlying techniques in technical depth, ideally supported by case studies and validation examples.

Presentation. Reviewers check adherence to the formatting guidelines. Where needed, authors may be referred to the NAFEMS language editing service.

 

Decisions and Timeline

After review, the editors accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject it. A typical timeline is:

about six weeks for peer review; two weeks for authors to revise and resubmit; a decision within two weeks of resubmission; one week to submit the final manuscript after acceptance; and one week to check the page proofs. Articles are published within about four weeks of proof approval. Timelines may vary, for example for issues linked to NAFEMS conferences.

 

Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers receive an electronic certificate recognising their contribution and are encouraged to list their service as EMAS reviewers on their CV and professional profiles.