VDMA Publishing House

1 About

The Bearing World Journal (BWJ) is a yearly peer reviewed international publication on scientific aspects of the engineering of bearings.

Online-ISSN 2566-4794

Print-ISSN 2513-1753

This journal is edited by

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Poll, Initiator, Head of international Scientific Board

Christian Kunze, Editor-in-chief

Dr.-Ing. Arbogast Grunau, President of the FVA Management Board

The purpose of the Bearing World Journal is to publish regularly scientific papers related to rolling and plain bearings. It will publish papers about fundamental research with keeping an eye on the industrial application.

• Scott Bair, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
• Prof. Harry Bhadeshia, University of Cambrigde, Great Britain
• Prof. Stefan Björklund, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
• Prof. Benyebka Bou-Said, Institut National Des Sciences Appliquées (INSA) Lyon, France
• Prof. Bernd Bertsche, Universität Stuttgart, Germany
• Prof. Ludger Deters, TU Magdeburg, Germany
• Prof. Duncan Dowson, University of Leeds, Great Britain (†)
• Prof. Rob Dwyer-Joyce, University of Sheffield, Great Britain
• Prof. Michel Fillon, Université de Poitiers, France
• Prof. Sergei Glavastkih, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Prof.
• Irina Goryacheva, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
• Prof. Feng Guo, Qingdao Technological University, China
• Prof. Martin Hartl, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic
• Prof. Stathis Ioannides, Imperial College London, Great Britain
• Prof. Georg Jacobs, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
• Prof. Motohiro Kaneta, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic
• Prof. Michael M. Khonsari, Louisiana State University, USA
• Prof. Ivan Krupka, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic
• Prof. Roland Larsson, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
• Prof. Antonius Lubrecht, Institut National Des Sciences Appliquées (INSA) Lyon, France
• Prof. Piet Lugt, SKF Nieuwegin; University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
• Prof. Jianbin Luo, State Key Laboratory of Tribology, Tsinghua University, China
• Prof. Guillermo Morales-Espejel, INSA Lyon, France
• Prof. Anne Neville, University of Leeds, Great Britain
• Prof. Hiroyuki Ohta, Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan
• Prof. Gerhard Poll, Leibniz University Hanover, Germany
• Prof. Martin Priest, University of Bradford, Great Britain
• Prof. Farshid Sadeghi, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, USA
• Prof. Richard Salant, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
• Prof. Bernd Sauer, TU Kaiserslautern, Germany
• Prof. Ian Sherrington, University of Central Lancashire, Great Britain
• Prof. Hugh Spikes, Imperial College London, Great Britain
• Prof. Gwidon Stachowiak, Curtin University Australia, Australia
• Prof. Kees Venner, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
• Prof. Philippe Vergne, Institut National Des Sciences Appliquées (INSA) Lyon, France
• Prof. Fabrice Ville, Institut National Des Sciences Appliquées (INSA) Lyon, France
• Prof. Sandro Wartzack, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
• Prof. John A. Williams, University of Cambridge, Great Britain
• Prof. Hans-Werner Zoch, IWT Stiftung Institut für Werkstofftechnik, Bremen, Germany

We encourage submissions from researchers from around the world.

We prioritize submissions that mark a new and demonstratively significant advancement on under-researched aspects of the field.

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

• The submission represents an original work that has not been published elsewhere
• The submission meets word length requirements for the manuscript type, which is all-inclusive of article text, references, tables, and figures;
• The submission cites current theoretical and empirically-based literature, including relevant articles published in the BWJ;
• The submission is written in language that is engaging, lively, and direct, using active voice whenever possible;
• The submission includes four to seven keywords;

The journal demands that all papers are original publication. It claims a non exclusive copyright so that the author will have the right to publish elsewhere with a credential to the original publication. The access to the papers published will be free.

Quality is at the heart of the BWJ. Acting with integrity and transparency, we seek to build partnerships with authors, editors and readers alike. As such, this journal will:

• never ask authors to pay a submission fee
• never ask authors to pay an APC (article processing charge) for publication prior to acceptance
• never publish works in exchange for gifts or money
• never falsely claim to represent another person or entity
• never use your data without consent

The primary and corresponding author claims responsibility for the content and the naming of all direct contributors to the content.

Editors, reviewers and the publisher are dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and the Editorial Board of this journal does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to the BWJ affirm that manuscript contents are original.

As such, this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. The following duties outlined for editors, copy editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Editors, authors, and reviewers will also adhere to the

and respect the

• Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the Editorial Review Board, the editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript.
• Review of Manuscripts: Each editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. Following desk review, the manuscript is forwarded blind peer review to the editorial review board who will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.
• Fair Review: The editor must ensure that each manuscript submitted to the BWJ is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
• Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.
• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of this Journal shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her own research without the written consent of the author.
• Errata Information: The editor must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
• Ethical Guidelines: The editor shall ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
• Proof of Misconduct: The editor should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
• Accountability: Editors attend four annual meetings through video conferences or virtual communications and advise on journal policy and scope, suggest ideas, new initiatives and programs if necessary to include in the journal. They may review submitted manuscripts, identify topics for special issues or attract new authors and submissions if necessary.

• Publication guidelines: Authors must follow the submission guidelines of the journal. (See submission guideline policies)
• Original Work: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
• Multiple Submissions: Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
• Peer Review Process: Authors must participate in the peer review process. (see review process and expected timeline)
• Authorship of the Paper: All authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
• Authenticity of Data: Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
• Conflict of Interest: Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
• Fundamental Errors: Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes at any point of time if the author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript.
• Submission Check Form: All authors must complete the author submission checklist form (see the form).

• Confidentiality: Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
• Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research.
• Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author (see manuscript review rubric)
• Supporting Argument: Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
• Plagiarism, Fraud and Other Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should let the editor know if you suspect/find that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
• Relevant Work: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not review 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.
• Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of the manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer
• Accountability: Review members attend two annual meetings through video conferences or virtual communications and suggest ideas, new initiatives, and programs if necessary to include in the journal. They review submitted manuscripts, identify topics for special issues or attract new authors and submissions if necessary.

• Board members advise on journal policy and scope, suggest ideas, new initiatives and programs if necessary to include in the journal. They may review submitted manuscripts, identify topics for special issues or attract new authors and submissions if necessary.

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. The Access is free of charge .Papers will be published on this site - the journal editions in the repository of the German National Library (DNB); see links below.

BWJ uses blind review process, which means that both the reviewers’ names are not allowed to be revealed to one another or to the author for a manuscript under review. Manuscripts are assigned to two or more reviewers. Reviewers provide a complete, fair, thoughtful evaluation of manuscripts to ensure all published work meet the goals of the journal.

High priority is given to manuscripts that mark a new and demonstratively significant advancement in research on international students by:

• focusing on under-researched aspects of the field
• joining theory and research

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Significance: Does the manuscript represent a new and demonstratively significant advancement in research on international students?
• Review of Literature: Does the manuscript include a well-organized and analytical review of relevantliterature? Does the manuscript use a clear and well-developed theoretical/conceptual framework?
• Research Design: Does the manuscript reflect appropriate design and methodology? Does the manuscript reflect high quality data and analysis?
• Discussion: Does the discussion and conclusion highlight the relevance of the findings for research, policy, and practice?
• Style: Is the manuscript clear, logical, and concise?

Based on the feedback from the Reviewers, the Editors will make one of the following decisions:

• Decline Submission: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal.
• Resubmit for Review (major revisions):The manuscript has potential for publication but significant revisions are required before publication can be considered.
• Revisions Required (minor revisions): The manuscript has potential for publication but specific revisions should be made before publication can be considered.
• Accept Submission: The manuscript can proceed to the next stage of the editorial process without any further edits.

The most common recommendations for manuscripts upon first review are Decline Submission and Resubmit for Review (major revisions). We aim to provide initial decisions within 90 days from new manuscript submission, although peer review may take more or less time depending on the circumstances.

Reviewers should provide detailed feedback and constructive recommendations for revision related to:

• Significance: Does the manuscript represent a new and demonstratively significant advancement in research on international students?
• Review of Literature: Does the manuscript include a well-organized and analytical review of relevantliterature? Does the manuscript use a clear and well-developed theoretical/conceptual framework?
• Research Design: Does the manuscript reflect appropriate design and methodology? Does the manuscript reflect high quality data and analysis? Does the conclusion highlight the relevance of the findings for policy and practice?
• Style: Is the manuscript clear, logical, and concise? Your feedback will allow the author(s) to improve their manuscript. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name.

We ask reviewers to please follow the guidelines below when reviewing assigned manuscripts:

• Give specific comments and suggestions for each major section of the manuscript, including Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, and Discussion, as well as comments on the usefulness of tables and figures. Providing detailed feedback about major areas of concern is essential to a high-quality review. You should explain and support your assessment of the manuscript's strengths and areas for improvement so that both editors and authors fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. When you sit down to write the Comments to Authors, familiarize yourself and reference the journal’s review criteria in the written feedback.
• According to COPE guidelines, reviewers must treat any manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential documents. Since peer review is confidential, they must not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This applies both during and after the publication process.
• Any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers’ (or their associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers’ citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers’ work (or that of their associates).
• We ask reviewers to not only form a judgment about the suitability of the manuscript for the journal but also evaluate the manuscript from their own position as critical readers of the field’s published work. While such judgment is critical to maintaining quality, we further ask that reviews be instructive and generative in ways that also define quality in terms of inclusiveness, equity, and diversity of ideas and methods, scholars and contexts from which they all come.

Reviewers are invited to make candid confidential comments to the Editors. Your comments are for the editor's eyes only. They will not be shared with the author. If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. View the COPE guidelines for more information.

Due to the high volume of manuscripts the journal receives, it is important to be purposeful in selecting what manuscripts to advance in the review and publication process. The most common recommendations for manuscripts upon first review are Decline Submission and Resubmit for Review (major revisions). Reviewers make one of the following recommendations along with a written report that explains their recommendation:

• Decline Submission: You believe the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal. Explain your reasoning why the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal.
• Resubmit: You believe the manuscript has potential, however the amount of work or degree of work still to be done by the authors will makes a fast revision for the current edition improbable.
• Review required Revision Required: (major revisions):You believe the manuscript has potential for publication but significant revisions are required before publication can be considered. Explain the major revisions required with an explanation of why they are necessary.
• No second Review Required (minor revisions): You believe the manuscript has potential for publication but specific revisions should be made before publication can be considered. Explain specific edits that should be made for publication to be considered.
• Approved: You believe the manuscript should proceed to the next stage of the editorial process without any further edits.

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor ultimately decides whether to reject or move forward with the submission. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision.

Even after finalizing the review, treat the article and any linked files or data must be treated as confidential documents. This means the reviewer must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, the reviewer also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

Disputes between reviewers and authors are settled by the scientific board by simple majority.

7.9 Sponsoring

The costs for the Review process provided by VDMA Services GmbH are covered by FVA GmbH (Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik / Research Association for Drive Technology)

7.10 Advertizing and Marketing

The Journal does not contain adverts. The Access to the journal is free of charge. Information about new editions will be provided by the editiors in the scientific community and users of drice technology.

8 Errata

Errata will be published here. Comments and contributions to further discussions are published there under the supervision of the editors.

9 Contact

submission@bearingworld.org