Journal of Precision Mechatronics and Intelligent Control

Precision Engineering, Mechatronics, and Intelligent Control

The Journal of Precision Mechatronics and Intelligent Control (JPMIC) is being developed for its planned 2027 launch by Global Literacy Publishing (GLP), Indonesia, to foster international research in precision mechatronics, intelligent control, advanced sensing, electromechanical systems, robotics, and high-performance engineering applications.

The journal aims to advance fundamental and applied research through rigorous scientific evaluation and international scholarly collaboration. Its inaugural issue is planned for 2027.

Publisher: Global Literacy Publishing (GLP), Indonesia.

Peer review: Double-anonymous peer review · License: CC BY 4.0 · Frequency: Biannual.

Author Guidelines

PT Global Literacy Publishing (GLP)

1. General Information

GLP journals welcome original scholarly manuscripts within the aims and scope of the selected journal. Manuscripts may be submitted in English or Bahasa Indonesia for initial editorial consideration; the official publication language is English (see the language requirements below). Manuscripts must not be simultaneously submitted elsewhere and must comply with publication ethics and editorial policies.

2. Manuscript Types

Original Research Articles

Review Articles (including systematic and critical reviews)

Methodological Articles

Technical Research Articles

Short Communications (where accepted by the selected journal)

Available manuscript types may vary according to the individual journal’s aims and scope.

3. Manuscript Preparation

Prepare the manuscript using the official GLP Master Manuscript Template v1.0 in editable Microsoft Word (.docx) format. Use A4 paper, a single-column main text, and the first-page journal-information sidebar provided in the template. Remove author names and affiliations from the manuscript file: GLP uses double-anonymous peer review (see Section 7).

4. Manuscript Structure

Article title, full author names, affiliations, and corresponding-author details

Abstract (150–250 words) and 5–8 keywords

1. Introduction — context, literature, research gap, objectives, and contribution

2. Materials and Methods — research design and reproducible procedures

3. Results — findings, evidence, tables, and figures

4. Discussion — interpretation, comparison with literature, implications, and limitations

5. Conclusion — concise summary of supported findings and contributions

Author Contributions, Funding, Acknowledgments (if applicable), Conflict of Interest, AI Use Statement, and References

Ethics approval and informed consent must be reported where applicable. A separate Data Availability Statement is not required by the GLP master template.

5. Figures, Tables, and Equations

Cite each figure and table in the text. Place figures near their first mention and provide captions below; place table captions above. Use editable Word tables, preferably with minimal horizontal rules and no unnecessary vertical borders. Multi-panel figures should identify panels as (a), (b), etc. Mathematical expressions should use Word Equation or an equivalent editable format and be numbered (1), (2), etc.

6. References and Citations

Number references by first appearance in the manuscript. Cite sources in square brackets, for example [1], [1–3], and [1,3]. Include complete bibliographic details and DOI links when available. Follow the reference examples in the official template. Reference-management tools such as Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote are recommended.

7. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

GLP journals use double-anonymous peer review: authors and reviewers are not identified to each other during review, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. Submit a fully anonymized manuscript — no author names, affiliations, contact details, or acknowledgments revealing identity, and no identifying information in file properties — and enter author names, affiliations, and corresponding-author details in the submission metadata (Contributors step) instead. A separate title-page file is not required. Manuscripts passing editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

8. Publication Ethics

Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, inappropriate authorship, and undisclosed conflicts of interest are prohibited. Studies requiring ethics approval or informed consent must provide the relevant information.

9. Artificial Intelligence Use

Disclose AI assistance in the AI Use Statement as specified in the template, identifying the tool and purpose where used. AI tools cannot be authors. Human authors remain responsible for accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity.

10. Article Processing Charges

Current policy: No APC (FREE, $0). There are no submission, editorial assessment, peer review, processing, or publication fees under this policy. Any future fee changes will be announced transparently on the relevant journal website and will not apply retroactively to submissions accepted under the No APC policy.

11. Manuscript Submission

Submit the anonymized manuscript (.docx) through the selected journal’s OJS submission portal and enter complete author details in the submission metadata. Upload supplementary material or separate high-resolution figures only when requested. Confirm all author metadata, declarations, and permissions before submission.

12. Editorial Decisions

Submissions undergo editorial screening, peer review, and a final editorial decision. Outcomes may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Accepted articles undergo copyediting and proofreading.

13. Copyright and Open Access

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal a non-exclusive right of first publication. Published articles use the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. The article copyright notice identifies PT Global Literacy Publishing as publisher.

Reviewer Guidelines

Global Literacy Publishing (GLP)Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

1. Introduction

Global Literacy Publishing (GLP) is committed to maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the scholarly journals under its management.

Peer reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and overall quality of submitted manuscripts.

These guidelines provide a consistent framework for conducting objective, constructive, confidential, and ethical peer review.

2. Peer Review Model

All GLP journals adopt a double-anonymous peer review process: authors and reviewers are not identified to each other. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and reviewers must not attempt to establish author identities.

Under this model:

Reviewers are informed of the authors' identities and affiliations.

Reviewers' identities remain confidential to authors.

Reviewers must provide objective evaluations based on the scientific merits of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or their participation in the review process without editorial authorization.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.

Assess the scientific originality and significance of the research.

Examine the appropriateness and reliability of the research methodology.

Evaluate the validity of the results and conclusions.

Provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments.

Maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts.

Declare any potential conflicts of interest.

Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Inform the editor when a manuscript falls outside their area of expertise.

Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or inappropriate requests for citations.

Reviewers should not use unpublished findings, data, or ideas obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

4. Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider:

Whether the manuscript falls within their expertise.

Whether they have sufficient time to complete a meaningful review.

Whether any personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflict of interest exists.

Whether they can maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript.

Reviewers who are unable to complete the review should decline the invitation promptly so that the editor can appoint another reviewer.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts against the official GLP single-column template: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion; 150–250-word abstract; 5–8 keywords; editable numbered equations; and numbered figures, tables, and references. Formatting issues should be distinguished from substantive scientific concerns.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria.

5.1 Relevance to the Journal's Scope

The manuscript should address topics relevant to the journal's aims and scope.

5.2 Originality and Scientific Contribution

The manuscript should present original findings, meaningful methodological developments, new scientific insights, or substantial contributions to existing knowledge.

5.3 Research Methodology

The research design, experimental procedures, datasets, mathematical models, computational methods, or analytical approaches should be appropriate and sufficiently explained.

5.4 Results and Validation

Results should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.

Where relevant, reviewers should assess the adequacy of experimental validation, statistical analysis, benchmarking, uncertainty assessment, or model evaluation.

5.5 Discussion and Interpretation

The discussion should interpret the findings critically, compare them with relevant literature, and acknowledge important limitations.

5.6 Conclusions

Conclusions should be consistent with the presented results and should not contain unsupported claims.

5.7 References

References should be relevant, accurate, sufficiently current where appropriate, and properly cited.

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own publications or those of colleagues.

5.8 Presentation and Organization

The manuscript should demonstrate logical organization, clear academic writing, appropriate figures and tables, and consistent terminology.

6. Reviewer Evaluation Form

Reviewers are encouraged to use the following evaluation criteria when assessing manuscripts.

Rating scale:

1 = Poor2 = Fair3 = Satisfactory4 = Good5 = Excellent

Ratings support the review process but do not automatically determine acceptance or rejection.

7. Reviewer Comments

Reviewers should provide comments in two categories.

A. Comments to Authors

These comments should explain the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and necessary improvements.

Reviewers are encouraged to identify:

Major scientific or methodological concerns.

Missing validation or insufficient evidence.

Problems with interpretation or conclusions.

Suggestions for improving clarity and presentation.

B. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential observations concerning ethical concerns, suspected research misconduct, major methodological deficiencies, or other issues relevant to the editorial decision.

Confidential comments should not contradict the substantive assessment communicated to the authors.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards and requires no substantive revision.

Minor Revision: The manuscript is scientifically sound but requires limited corrections or clarifications.

Major Revision: The manuscript has potential scientific merit but requires substantial improvements, additional analysis, or stronger validation.

Reject: The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

9. Review Timeline

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified in the review invitation.

As an initial operational target, GLP recommends a 14–21-day review period, subject to reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Reviewers who require additional time should inform the editorial team as early as possible.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed review completion or publication date.

10. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.

Disclose unpublished findings or research data.

Use manuscript content for personal research without permission.

Contact authors directly regarding the review without editorial authorization.

Upload confidential manuscript content to external AI tools without explicit authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation, or other research integrity concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should provide supporting explanations rather than making unsupported allegations.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any circumstances that could compromise their impartiality, including:

Close personal or professional relationships with authors.

Recent or ongoing research collaborations.

Direct financial or commercial interests.

Competitive interests that could affect objective judgment.

Other circumstances creating actual or perceived conflicts.

Reviewers should decline assignments when an appropriate level of independence cannot be maintained.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers remain personally responsible for their assessments and recommendations.

Generative AI tools must not be used to replace independent scientific judgment.

Reviewers must not submit confidential manuscripts or unpublished research data to public or external AI systems without explicit editorial authorization and adequate data protection arrangements.

Any authorized AI assistance must comply with the journal's confidentiality, research integrity, and AI-use policies.

13. Ethical and Constructive Reviewing

Reviewers should maintain a respectful and professional tone.

Constructive reviews should identify specific concerns and explain how authors may address them.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential scientific corrections and optional suggestions.

Reviewers must not impose personal preferences or demand unnecessary additional experiments that are unrelated to the manuscript's principal scientific claims.

14. Reviewer Recognition

GLP values the voluntary contributions of peer reviewers to scholarly publishing.

Subject to reviewer consent and confidentiality requirements, the publisher may recognize reviewer contributions through certificates of appreciation or other appropriate forms of acknowledgment.

Recognition must not compromise reviewer anonymity or editorial independence.

15. Final Editorial Responsibility

Peer reviewers provide independent scientific assessments and recommendations.

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor is responsible for making the final editorial decision after considering the manuscript's scientific quality, reviewers' comments, ethical compliance, and journal policies.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of financial considerations, author affiliations, and institutional influence.

Publisher: PT Global Literacy Publishing (GLP)Peer Review Model: Double-anonymousStandard Reviewer Assignment: Normally at least two independent reviewersArticle Processing Charges: Free ($0)

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo double-anonymous peer review: authors and reviewers are not identified to each other during review, insofar as anonymity is feasible, and reviewers’ identities remain confidential to authors. Authors submit an anonymized manuscript using the official GLP template — without author names, affiliations, or identifying information — and enter author details in the submission metadata only.

1. Initial Editorial Screening. The editorial team assesses each submission for relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, scientific quality, manuscript preparation, and compliance with publication ethics and journal policies. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned for correction or declined before external review.

2. Independent Peer Review. Manuscripts that pass screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers assess the research contribution, methodological rigor, adequacy of evidence, interpretation of findings, and clarity of presentation.

3. Editorial Decision and Revision. Based on the reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial standards, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor may decide to accept, request minor revision, request major revision, or reject a manuscript. Authors invited to revise should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Further review may be requested when necessary.

4. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence. Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and provide objective, constructive assessments. Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory; the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor and is based on scientific merit and ethical compliance.

5. After Acceptance. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and publication preparation in accordance with the journal’s policies and the official GLP manuscript template.

Article Processing Charges (APC)

All journals published by Global Literacy Publishing (GLP) currently operate under a No Article Processing Charges (No APC) policy.

Authors are not required to pay any fees for manuscript submission, peer review, article processing, or publication.

All manuscripts are evaluated based on scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

APC: FREE ($0)

Any future changes to this policy will be announced on the official journal website and will not affect manuscripts submitted under the No APC policy.

Journal of Precision Mechatronics and Intelligent Control (JPMIC) invites original research articles, review articles, methodological studies, and technical research papers within its stated aims and scope.

Inaugural issue: June 2027 (Wave 2) · Submissions open: December 1, 2026 (year-round thereafter).

Submission deadlines: Volume 1, No. 1 (June 2027): April 30, 2027 · Volume 1, No. 2 (December 2027): October 31, 2027. Submissions received after a deadline are considered for the following issue.

Publication language: English (initial submission may be in English or Bahasa Indonesia) · Peer review: Double-anonymous peer review · Open Access: CC BY 4.0 · APC: FREE ($0).

Research Areas

• Precision Mechatronic System Design
• Servo Systems and High-Performance Motion Control
• Intelligent and Adaptive Motion Control
• Precision Positioning and Micro-/Nano-Motion Systems
• Mechatronic Dynamics and System Identification
• Advanced Control Methods for Precision Systems
• Precision Actuators and Drive Technologies
• Precision Sensing, Measurement, and Metrology
• Vibration Suppression and Disturbance Compensation
• Precision Robotics and Robotic Motion Systems
• Embedded and Real-Time Precision Control
• Precision Mechatronics in Advanced Manufacturing

Submission Guidelines

Authors should follow the Author Guidelines. Submissions are made via the journal's OJS submission site.

Questions: [email protected]. Publication is subject to peer review and editorial acceptance. No indexing or accreditation status is claimed.