Reviewer Guidelines

1. Purpose and Scope

These guidelines define the standards and procedures for peer review at Reliability: Theory & Applications. Reviewers must use them in conjunction with the mandatory review form in the editorial system. The primary goals are to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of published manuscripts to the journal's field.

2. Ethical Obligations and Pre-Screening

Before accepting a review invitation, ensure compliance with the following:

  • Expertise: Accept only if you possess sufficient knowledge to evaluate the manuscript's theoretical and applied contributions to reliability.
  • Conflict of Interest: Decline or immediately notify the editor if any conflicts exist (e.g., collaboration with authors in the last 3 years, direct academic competition, financial ties).
  • Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged document. Do not distribute, discuss, or use its content without editorial authorization.
  • Timeliness: Confirm availability to meet the review deadline. Requests for extension must be submitted promptly.

3. Core Evaluation Criteria

Focus your assessment on the following journal-specific criteria. These areas must be addressed both in the structured review form and the narrative comments.

3.1. Relevance and Significance

  • Does the work provide a meaningful contribution to reliability theory, applied probability, or risk analysis?
  • Is the practical application (if any) clearly defined and significant for engineering, maintenance, or safety systems?

3.2. Originality and Novelty

  • Does the paper introduce a new model, method, or a non-trivial advancement of existing approaches?
  • Is the current state of research, including key publications in Reliability: Theory & Applications, adequately cited and contextualized?

3.3. Methodological Rigor

  • Is the mathematical/statistical methodology sound, correctly applied, and clearly presented?
  • Are all assumptions explicitly stated and justified within the scope of reliability problems?
  • If the paper includes case studies or data, are the sources and processing methods transparent and reproducible?

3.4. Presentation and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and accessible to the journal's audience?
  • Are figures, tables, and nomenclature effective and necessary?

4. Structure of the Narrative Review

The mandatory review form captures your final verdict and scores. Your free-text comments must provide detailed justification and guidance, structured as follows:

4.1. Summary (Brief)

  • Provide a short (2-3 sentence) synopsis of the manuscript's objectives and core findings to demonstrate your comprehension.

4.2. Major Concerns

  • List critical issues that affect the validity, interpretation, or fundamental contribution of the work. These typically require major revision.
  • For each concern, provide a specific reference (page, line, equation, figure) and a constructive suggestion for improvement.
  • Example: "The proposed model assumes failure independence (Section 3, p.5), which is rarely valid for cascading systems in reliability. The authors must address this limitation or justify the assumption with references."

4.3. Minor Concerns and Editorial Suggestions

  • Note specific suggestions for improving clarity, language, formatting, or correcting minor technical inaccuracies.
  • Example: "Fig. 2: Please add axis labels. Equation (4): There appears to be a typo in the subscript; please verify."

5. Recommendation and Use of the Review Form

Your final recommendation must align with the comments provided and be selected in the journal's review form. Use the following interpretation:

  • Reject (Do not publish): The manuscript has fundamental flaws (invalid methodology, lack of novelty, outside scope) that cannot be addressed through revision.
  • Major Revision (Publish if concerns addressed): The manuscript has significant potential but requires substantial corrections to methodology, analysis, or conclusions. Indicate whether you are willing to review the revised version.
  • Minor Revision (Publish after revisions): The manuscript is principally sound but requires clarifications, additional data, or improvements in presentation.
  • Accept as is (Publish): The manuscript is excellent and ready for publication in its current form.
  1. Final Editorial Decision

The review provides a recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, considering all reviews, the journal's editorial policy, and the overall flow of submissions. Your detailed and objective assessment is the cornerstone of this process.