• Introduction
• Ethical Considerations
• Confidentiality
• The Review Process
• Evaluation Criteria
• Writing the Review
• Timeliness
• Data Availability
• Conflicts of Interest
• Contact Information

Introduction

Vance Press is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review to ensure the quality and integrity of our publications, including Rock Mechanics Letters. Our peer review process typically involves initial editorial screening, followed by thorough evaluation by expert reviewers. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to 2-3 reviewers who are asked to provide detailed comments and recommendations within 2-3 weeks. Based on these reviews, the handling editor makes a decision to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review before a final decision is made.

As a reviewer, your role is crucial in this process. Your expertise and insights help ensure the scientific validity, originality, and clarity of the research we publish. These guidelines are designed to help you understand your responsibilities and how to conduct an effective review, contributing to the maintenance of high scientific standards in our publications.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should adhere to the highest ethical standards:

• Maintain objectivity and fairness throughout the review process.
• Respect the intellectual property rights of the authors.
• Decline to review if you feel unqualified or if there's a potential conflict of interest.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review should be treated as confidential documents:

• Do not share or discuss the manuscript with others without explicit permission from the editor.
• Do not use information from the manuscript for personal advantage.

The Review Process

1. Initial assessment: Determine if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise.
2. Thorough reading: Carefully read the entire manuscript, including supplementary materials.
3. Critical analysis: Evaluate the manuscript based on the criteria provided below.
4. Constructive feedback: Provide detailed, constructive comments to help improve the manuscript.

Evaluation Criteria

Assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and significance of the research
• Appropriateness of methodology
• Clarity of presentation
• Validity of conclusions
• Relevance to the field
• Quality of writing and organization

Writing the Review

Your review should include:

1. A brief summary of the manuscript's main points.
2. Major strengths and weaknesses of the study.
3. Specific, constructive suggestions for improvement.
4. A clear recommendation (accept, revise, or reject) with justification.

Timeliness

Timely reviews are crucial for the publication process:

• Aim to complete your review within the agreed timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks).
• If you need more time, promptly inform the editorial office.

Data Availability

Vance Press encourages data sharing to promote transparency and reproducibility:

• Check if the authors have provided a clear data availability statement.
• Assess whether the data sharing approach is appropriate for the field and complies with ethical standards.
• Comment on the accessibility and completeness of shared data or code.

Conflicts of Interest

Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor:

• Personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors.
• Competitive or collaborative relationships related to the research.

Reviewers are also recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Contact Information

If you have any questions or concerns about the review process, please contact our editorial office:

Email: [email protected]

We appreciate your contribution to maintaining the high standards of scientific publishing at Vance Press.