Rock Mechanics Letters is committed to a transparent and open editorial process that upholds the highest standards of academic integrity. Our process ensures that every manuscript is thoroughly evaluated from submission to publication, with clear communication at each stage.

The Rock Mechanics Letters Editorial Process

Below is a detailed overview of our editorial workflow:

Initial Quality Check:

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial quality check. This step includes technical assessments such as formatting compliance and adherence to ethical standards. Importantly, we use tools like iThenticate to check for plagiarism and ensure that the manuscript's content is original. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic criteria may be returned to the authors for revision before proceeding.

Editorial Pre-Check:

Following the initial quality check, the manuscript is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned academic editor. This pre-check assesses the manuscript's scientific merit, relevance to the journal's scope, and potential contribution to the field. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards may be rejected at this stage, with clear reasons provided to the authors.

Peer Review:

Manuscripts that pass the editorial pre-check are sent for peer review. Rock Mechanics Letters follows a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Authors have the option to recommend potential reviewers. However, to ensure the integrity and objectivity of the review process, the following restrictions apply:

• Reviewers who have a conflict of interest with the authors, such as personal or financial relationships, are not eligible.
• Reviewers who have collaborated with the authors within the last three years are excluded.
• Reviewers who work at the same institution as the authors are not allowed to review the manuscript.

The peer review process typically involves at least two independent reviewers who evaluate the manuscript's quality, originality, and scientific rigor. Their feedback is then used to guide the editorial decision-making process.

Author Revision:

If revisions are required based on the reviewers' feedback, authors are provided with detailed comments and suggestions to improve their manuscript. The revision process is transparent, with clear guidelines on how to address the reviewers' concerns. Authors are encouraged to carefully consider all feedback and submit a revised manuscript that meets the journal's standards.

Editor Decision:

After the peer review process is complete, the Editor-in-Chief or an academic editor reviews the feedback from the reviewers. Based on this feedback, along with their own assessment of the manuscript, the editor makes a decision on whether the manuscript requires revision, is accepted, or is rejected. This decision is communicated transparently to the authors, along with any necessary explanations or revision requests.

Final Editing and Production:

Once a manuscript is accepted, it undergoes several stages of final editing to ensure it meets the journal’s quality standards:

• Copy Editing: The manuscript is refined for clarity, consistency, and adherence to the journal’s style guidelines, enhancing readability and professionalism.
• English Editing: The language is reviewed to ensure precision, clarity, and correctness, making the research accessible to an international audience.
• Author Proofreading: Authors are provided with proofs of their manuscript for final review. This step allows authors to check for any errors or final adjustments before the manuscript is published.
• XML/HTML/PDF Production: The final version of the manuscript is produced in multiple formats, including XML, HTML, and PDF, to ensure it is accessible and usable across various platforms.

Publication Ethics

Rock Mechanics Letters follows the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, all Vance Press editors are rigorously trained to detect and address ethical issues.

We adhere to COPE procedures for handling unethical behavior by authors, reviewers, or editors. Ethical issues raised by readers are investigated by the editorial office, following COPE guidelines.

Authorship disputes are managed according to COPE guidelines. If all authors agree, authorship can be updated via a correction. If not, we require an authoritative statement from the authors' institution(s).

For more details, please refer to the Publishing Ethics page on our journal’s website.

Editorial Independence

At Rock Mechanics Letters, we uphold the principle of editorial independence. The editorial decisions, including peer review outcomes and acceptance of manuscripts, are made without any influence from external parties, including sponsors, advertisers, or other stakeholders. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are solely responsible for the academic quality of the journal, ensuring that all published content meets our rigorous standards.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding our editorial process, please feel free to contact us: [email protected].