Focus and Scope

• Design of mechanical components used in engineering structures, machines and engines, computer aided design (CAD), computer aided manufacturing (CAM), the development of methodology for designing machine elements or mechanical components.
• Finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, computational heat and mass transfer, applied mechanics, biomechanics.
• Manufacturing technologies, materials processing technologies, conventional and non-conventional machining, powder metallurgy, casting, welding, additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping, automation.
• Evaluation of engine performance, tribology and lubrication, engine maintenance, testing of mechanical components, materials characterizations, failure analysis.
• Experimental fluid dynamics, multiphase flow, heat and mass transfer, pump and compressor.
• Energy conversion, turbo machineries, internal combustion engines, power plant.
• Mechanical engineering education, learning method for mechanical engineering education, engineering ethics.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to JMDT undergo a rigorous screening and review process to ensure that they fit into the journal's scope and are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to JMDT's readership. JMDT employs a double-blind peer review, in which both author(s) and reviewer identities are concealed from each other.

Initial screening. A newly submitted manuscript will be screened by the Editor-in-Chief for its conformity to JMDT scope and basic submission requirements.

Peer-review. If the manuscript passes the initial screening stage, it will be assigned to a handling editor, who will then send it to at least two experts in the relevant field to undergo a double-blind peer-review. Manuscripts that fail to pass the initial screening will be rejected without further review.

First decision. A decision on a peer-reviewed manuscript will only be made upon the receipt of at least two review reports. In cases where reports differ significantly, the handling editor will invite an additional reviewer to get a third opinion before making a decision. At this stage, a manuscript can either be rejected, asked for revisions (minor or major), accepted as is, or (if significant changes to the language or content are required) recommended for resubmission for a second review process. If it is accepted, the manuscript will be returned to the submitting author for formatting. The final decision to accept the manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendation of the handling editor and following approval by the board of editors.

Revision stage. A manuscript that requires revisions will be returned to the submitting author, who will have up to three weeks to format and revise the manuscript, following which it will be reviewed by the handling editor. The handling editor will determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate, as well as whether the author(s) sufficiently responded to the reviewers' comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed to be inadequate, this cycle will be repeated (the manuscript will be returned to the submitting author once more for further revision).

Final decision. At this stage, the revised manuscript will either be accepted or rejected. This decision is dependent on whether the handling editor finds the manuscript to have been improved to a level worthy of publication. If the author(s) are unable to make the required changes or have done so to a degree below JMDT's standards, the manuscript will be rejected.

Publication Frequency

JMDT is published twice a year in June and December through the Open Journal Systems platform.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Publication Frequency

JMDT is published twice a year in June and December through the Open Journal Systems platform.

Open Access Policy

• JMDT provides immediate open access to its published articles, with authors retaining copyright and free to deposit their work in any repository at any time.
• Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. In addition to being freely accessible, they may be copied, shared, or adapted for any purpose in any medium, as long as appropriate credit is given to the author and JMDT and changes are indicated.

Publication Ethics

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention: Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
6. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
8. Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript.

Duties of Editors

1. Fair Play: An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decisions: The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Review of Manuscripts: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

 Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
6. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Screening for Plagiarism

Manuscripts submitted to JMDT will be automatically screened for plagiarism using Turnitin. Papers found to contain a significant amount of plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) will be automatically rejected.

Review Guidelines

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

• Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is a good reason.
• Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
• Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
• Ready? Read through the entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
• What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound scientific reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

Full Review Process of Manuscript

• Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organization?
• Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
• Eliminated/expanded/added?
• Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
• Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that the reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
• Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
• Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.