Editorial Workflow

Enacted in January 2, 2022

An Editorial Process Oriented Toward Thoughtful Curation

At MechEcology, peer review is not conceived as a gatekeeping mechanism but as a space of careful reception. We understand editorial work as the quiet task of recognizing sustained thought, listening for conceptual coherence, and honoring the integrity of a submitted idea. The process reflects our belief that academic contribution is not measured solely by novelty, but by the seriousness of its engagement, the clarity of its structure, and its capacity to deepen ongoing reflection.

1. Initial Reception

All submissions are first read attentively by the editorial team. At this stage, we consider whether the work:

• Is grounded in a clearly articulated and responsibly developed conceptual framework
• Demonstrates intellectual consistency, argumentative focus, and reflective care
• Resonates with the broader philosophical and thematic orientation of MechEcology

This is not an evaluation of empirical rigor or adherence to disciplinary conventions. Rather, it is a contemplative encounter with the submission's rhythm, depth, and ethical orientation.

2. Reflective Commentary

When appropriate, the editorial team may invite one or two thoughtful interlocutors to respond to the submission in the form of a short reflective commentary. These are not peer reviews in the conventional sense but rather letters of engagement.

Such commentaries may touch on:

• The work’s contribution to relevant theoretical or philosophical conversations
• The clarity and focus of its central claim
• Its potential to support further inquiry or reconsideration

While authors are encouraged to consider these reflections with care, revisions may be requested when the editorial team deems them necessary to maintain conceptual clarity, stylistic integrity, or alignment with the journal’s curatorial standards.

3. Final Editorial Consideration

Final decisions regarding publication are made by the editorial board based on the following considerations:

• Does the work contribute meaningfully to an ongoing dialogue of ideas?
• Is the argument presented with conceptual clarity, stylistic precision, and ethical care?
• Can the work inhabit the intellectual and aesthetic environment of MechEcology with integrity?

Our decision is not a verdict but an act of curatorship. We ask not whether the submission passes a threshold, but whether it belongs in the evolving archive of thought we seek to cultivate.

Additional Notes

• We publish no more than two works per issue, not out of limitation, but in order to sustain depth and attentiveness.
• Submissions may be accepted, invited for further development, or respectfully declined.
• No numerical scoring or ranking is used.

Our Editorial Ethos

We do not read in order to judge.
We read in order to listen.
Every submission is a gesture of thought.
Our task is to receive it with care and to decide, with seriousness, whether it joins the quiet constellation of texts we are assembling here.