Safety Engineering of Anthropogenic Objects is an interdisciplinary journal publishing research on the safety of human-made technical facilities, particularly buildings, infrastructure and industrial structures.
The field covers the design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities intended to meet human needs. Its purpose is to protect people, property and the environment throughout the entire life cycle of a facility.
Research in this area focuses on developing solutions that improve the resilience of facilities to hazards arising both within them and in their surroundings. It also addresses methods of reducing the risk of adverse events and limiting their consequences.
Safety engineering of anthropogenic objects draws on interdisciplinary, general engineering and specialist knowledge. It requires an understanding not only of engineering methods and tools, but also of legal regulations, technical standards and the organisation of processes related to design, construction, operation and maintenance.
The journal publishes research on the technical, legal, organisational and economic aspects of safety. It also provides a forum for sharing knowledge and experience in areas such as structural condition monitoring, technical testing and assessment, and periodic inspection of buildings.
Principles of Scientific Peer Review
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected primarily on the basis of their expertise in the subject of the manuscript. The Editorial Team also considers their academic record, professional experience, familiarity with current research and reputation for reliability and impartiality.
The choice of reviewer must not be influenced by assumptions about whether the reviewer is likely to be lenient or strict, by a desire to obtain a particular recommendation, by personal favours, or by financial or professional considerations.
A reviewer should not take part in the evaluation of a manuscript where there is a personal, professional or academic dispute with one of the authors.
Preparation of the Review
Where reviews are paid, the Editorial Team enters into an agreement with the reviewer specifying the scope of the work, the deadline and the expected standard of the review.
For manuscripts reporting empirical research, the reviewer may ask the Editorial Team for additional materials concerning the research design, methods or results.
The Editorial Team may decline a review that does not meet the agreed requirements, accepted academic standards or the journal’s expectations.
Review deadlines are set by the Editorial Team to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process.
Independence of the Review
The Editorial Team does not influence the content or outcome of the review. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts independently and form their own conclusions.
Before accepting an invitation, a prospective reviewer may receive basic information about the manuscript, such as its title, abstract, keywords, table of contents or selected excerpts. This allows the reviewer to decide whether the subject falls within their area of expertise.
A reviewer may decline an invitation. The full manuscript is made available after the reviewer accepts the assignment and the terms of cooperation have been agreed.
Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal uses a double-blind peer-review procedure to support fairness and objectivity. Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not receive information that could identify the authors.
Authors should submit two versions of the manuscript:
- a full version containing the authors’ names and affiliations;
- an anonymised version containing no identifying information.
Identifying details should also be removed from the reference list, footnotes, file names and document properties. Where a reference to the author is necessary, the designation [Author] may be used.
Conflicts of Interest
There must be no relationship between a reviewer and an author that could compromise, or appear to compromise, the impartiality of the assessment.
A reviewer should not have:
- a close personal or family relationship with an author;
- a direct reporting relationship with an author;
- an ongoing or recent research collaboration with an author;
- a business or financial relationship with an author;
- a personal, professional or academic dispute with an author.
A supervisor must not review the work of a subordinate, and a subordinate must not review the work of a supervisor.
Any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest must be reported to the Editorial Team immediately. The reviewer should then withdraw from the assessment.
Reviewer Remuneration
Where a review is paid, the amount is agreed between the Editorial Team and the reviewer, taking into account the scope and complexity of the work.
Payment must not depend on whether the reviewer recommends acceptance, revision or rejection.
Confidentiality of the Peer-Review Process
The manuscript, the review and its conclusions remain confidential until the review process has been completed. Access to the documentation is limited to those directly involved in the editorial process.
Reviewers must not:
- share the manuscript with third parties;
- use unpublished findings for their own purposes;
- disclose information about the review process;
- consult others about the manuscript without permission from the Editorial Team;
- speculate publicly about the identity of the authors or other reviewers.
After all reviews have been received, the Editor-in-Chief provides the relevant participants with the information needed to reach an editorial decision, including the main conclusions and concerns raised by the reviewers.
Authors receive anonymised reviews and recommendations. Information that could identify the reviewers is not disclosed.
Disputed Cases
Where reviews differ significantly, the Editorial Team may invite an additional reviewer.
The editorial decision takes into account all reviews, the seriousness of the concerns raised and whether the identified problems can be addressed.
A single negative review does not automatically lead to rejection. However, where more than one reviewer raises serious concerns, the manuscript may be sent for further evaluation or rejected.
Authors may respond to reviewers’ comments and provide reasoned explanations. This does not, however, guarantee acceptance.
Where major revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewer for further assessment.
Irregularities and Misconduct
If there is reason to suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, manipulation or another breach of publication ethics, the Editorial Team investigates the matter before completing the review process.
Confirmed serious misconduct may result in rejection of the manuscript.
If false or harmful allegations are made against an author, the Editorial Team should take appropriate steps to clarify the matter and protect the author’s reputation.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Competence
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether they have the necessary expertise and enough time to complete the review properly.
Reviewers should be familiar with:
- the relevant current literature;
- the present state of research in the field;
- appropriate research methods;
- principles of publication ethics;
- accepted standards for scholarly reviews.
By accepting a review assignment, the reviewer assumes professional responsibility for the quality and fairness of the assessment.
Formal Responsibilities
A reviewer who has accepted an assignment should not withdraw without a valid reason. Valid reasons may include unforeseen circumstances, a newly identified conflict of interest or recognition that the reviewer lacks the necessary expertise.
If this becomes clear only after reading the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Team promptly and explain the reason for withdrawing.
A manuscript of very low quality should still be reviewed. In such a case, the reviewer should provide a negative recommendation supported by clear and substantive reasons.
Reliability and Impartiality
Reviewers must remain impartial and assess the manuscript carefully.
The assessment should consider:
- scientific value and contribution;
- originality and novelty;
- methodological soundness;
- the author’s independent contribution;
- consistency between the findings and conclusions;
- relevance and currency of the literature;
- compliance with legal and ethical standards;
- formal, linguistic and stylistic quality.
A good review identifies both strengths and weaknesses. Criticism should be specific, proportionate and supported by evidence.
Personal, insulting, malicious or biased comments are unacceptable.
Originality and Possible Misconduct
Reviewers should consider whether the work is original and whether it contains possible plagiarism, self-plagiarism, undisclosed borrowing, data falsification or other forms of research misconduct.
Any suspicious similarities or irregularities should be reported to the Editorial Team together with the reasons for concern.
Evidence of plagiarism, falsification or other serious misconduct should result in a negative recommendation.
Coherence and Substance of the Review
A review should be clear, logical and sufficiently detailed. It should not be limited to a brief statement that the manuscript is good or poor.
The recommendation must follow logically from the comments. A review should not raise serious objections and then recommend acceptance without explanation. Equally, it should not praise the manuscript and then recommend rejection without justification.
The review should end with one clear recommendation:
- accept without changes;
- accept after minor revisions;
- resubmit for review after major revisions;
- reject.
Timeliness and Discretion
Reviews should be completed within the deadline set by the Editorial Team.
If the deadline cannot be met, the reviewer should contact the Editor-in-Chief to agree on a new date or withdraw from the assignment.
Reviewers should not attempt to identify the other reviewers or consult them about their assessments, comments or intended recommendations.