All manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor for:
· Relevance to the Aims and Scope
· Originality
· Scientific significance
· Methodological rigor
· Ethical compliance
· Completeness
· Similarity with previously published material
· Language and presentation quality
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, or scope requirements may be declined without external peer review.
Manuscripts passing initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
MME uses single-blind peer review. Reviewer identities remain confidential to authors.
Reviewers are selected according to:
· Subject expertise
· Methodological expertise
· Recent scholarly activity
· Absence of significant conflicts of interest
· Ability to provide an objective and timely assessment
Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential.
Reviewers and editors must not:
· Share manuscript content without authorization
· Use unpublished information for personal advantage
· Contact authors directly regarding the review
· Delegate a review without editorial approval
· Upload confidential manuscripts or data to unauthorized public AI systems
Reviewers evaluate:
· Scope relevance
· Originality
· Scientific contribution
· Methodology
· Experimental or computational design
· Validation
· Statistical or numerical analysis
· Interpretation
· Reproducibility
· Conclusions
· References
· Language and presentation
Possible decisions include:
· Accept
· Minor Revision
· Major Revision
· Reject
Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine it.
Manuscripts authored by editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, or close collaborators must be assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.
The conflicted editor must not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer information, or influence the final decision.