Peer Review Policy

Submitted papers are submitted via the online submission system (http://ky.bgrimm.cn/). All papers published in Mining and Metallurgy (also referred to as the journal) undergo rigorous peer review (peer review refers to the process of obtaining opinions from relevant experts in the field). Typically, at least two peer reviewers are selected during the single-blind peer review process. The editorial department strictly adheres to a three-level review and three-level proofreading system. All manuscripts are cross-checked by the responsible editor and other editors, reviewed by the executive editor, reviewed by external experts and scholars, proofread by the authors themselves, and go through multiple processes to avoid errors.

Step 1: Editorial Department Preliminary Review

Submitted papers are first reviewed in terms of direction, topic selection, and academic level. The review also includes plagiarism detection via the AMLC system supported by CNKI to prevent academic misconduct. The text replication rate should be below 15%. Papers meeting the requirements of *Mining and Metallurgy* will proceed to expert review; unqualified papers will be rejected.

Upon receiving a manuscript, the editorial department first conducts a preliminary review, including:

1) Verifying whether the manuscript meets the journal's acceptance requirements and whether the manuscript's repetition rate falls within the journal's required range;

2) Verifying whether all elements constituting the manuscript are complete, whether the figures and tables meet requirements, and whether the format is standardized;

3) Assessing the academic and scientific quality of the manuscript and deciding whether to send it for review.

The results of the editorial department's preliminary review generally fall into three categories:

1) Send for External Review

Manuscripts deemed to have publication value after preliminary review are sent to two peer experts for parallel review.

2) Return for Supplementation or Revision

If the manuscript's content description is insufficiently complete, or the repetition rate or language is unqualified, the author is informed of the areas needing supplementation or revision. After revisions are completed, the manuscript returns to the editorial department and re-enters the preliminary review stage.

3) Rejection

If the editor believes the manuscript does not fit the journal's scope or submission requirements, it will not be sent for review and will be directly returned.

Step 2: Peer Review

The main purpose of peer review is to enhance the academic quality of submitted manuscripts.

1) Peer Review Format: Two peer experts, single-blind review.

2) Reviewer Selection

Reviewers for this journal are renowned experts and scholars in their fields, recommended and invited by the editorial board to serve as reviewers. Authors may also recommend reviewers.

3) Manuscript Review Criteria

Review experts make professional judgments on manuscripts based primarily on the following review criteria:

- Whether the manuscript's content is innovative;

- The scientific and engineering significance of the topic, the originality, foresight, and practicality of the article;

- Whether the manuscript has major defects, the accuracy and reliability of theoretical derivations, concepts, data, and figures/tables, and whether they support the manuscript's research content and conclusions;

- The completeness and readability of the manuscript, how reasonable, accurate, and complete the structure is, and how clear the logic is; whether the research question is clearly articulated, and how valid the article's conclusions are.

4) Peer Review Results

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two peer review experts who provide professional opinions based on the review criteria. The responsible editor synthesizes the opinions of both review experts and makes one of the following decisions:

- Accept

- Minor revision

- Major revision

- Reject

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires slight modifications and will be submitted for re-review after revision.

Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision. When the author returns the revised manuscript, they must respond to each review comment point-by-point. Based on the revised manuscript and responses to review comments, the responsible editor decides whether to proceed to the review stage or return it for external re-review.

Reject: If both peer review experts recommend rejection, a rejection decision is made, and the review comments are provided.

The manuscript is then submitted to the executive editor for re-review.

Step 3: Re-review

The executive editor conducts a re-review based on the results of the editorial department's preliminary review and peer review, provides re-review opinions, and makes one of the following decisions:

1) Accept

2) Minor revision

3) Major revision

4) Reject

The manuscript is then submitted to the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor-in-Chief for final review.

Step 4: Final Review

The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor-in-Chief makes the final handling decision based on the editorial department's preliminary review, peer review results, and re-review opinions, deciding whether to accept and recommending the publication timeline.

Reviewer Selection

Currently, reviewers are divided into two categories: internal editorial reviewers and external reviewers. Internal reviewers are members of the journal's editorial board and youth editorial board. External reviewers consist of experts, scholars, and researchers in the field from both domestic and international institutions.

Submissions by Editorial Board Members and Editors

Manuscripts submitted by editorial board members and editors must also undergo all of the journal's review and editorial procedures. Editorial board members and editors may not participate in the review, editorial handling, or acceptance decisions for papers written by themselves, family members, or colleagues. Peer review must be conducted independently of the relevant authors, editors, and their research groups.

Editorial Policy

Editorial Revisions: In accordance with the relevant provisions of copyright law, the journal may make textual revisions and deletions to manuscripts. Revisions involving author preferences will be submitted for the author's consideration.

Revision Deadline: Review results are generally communicated to authors within 1–2 months. For individual manuscripts, the review time may be longer. If no review result is received after more than 2 months, authors may contact the editorial department and submit elsewhere.

Manuscript Originality Requirements

Plagiarism Check: During the preliminary review stage, iThenticate will be used for plagiarism checks; the repetition rate must be within 15%.

Authorship Attribution: Authorship is limited to those who have made significant contributions to conceiving the research topic, designing the research plan, and processing and interpreting the research work; those who have made important contributions should be acknowledged. Other participants in the research work should be listed in the acknowledgments.

Citation of References: References that are significantly important to the article must be listed in the references section.

Manuscript Endogeneity

Endogeneity must be minimized. The proportion of published research papers in the most recent two issues where at least one author is an editor, editorial board member, or reviewer shall not exceed 25%. Articles display submission/acceptance/online dates.

Publishing Special Issues

Publishing special issues or other journal sections curated by guest editors adheres to the following additional standards: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the entire journal's content, including all special issues, which must fall within the journal's scope. Guest editors are responsible for special issue topic planning and manuscript collection. Special issue articles receive the same editorial oversight as regular articles. The journal ensures that guest editors' credentials are checked and approved. The EiC or a designated board member supervises guest editors. Papers submitted by guest editors to special issues will be handled under an independent review process and shall not exceed 25% of the total number of papers in that issue.