Double-Blind Peer Review Process – Fair and Transparent
All articles published in our Journals undergo a double-blind peer-review process, to ensure a fair and transparent critical assessment of all published works.
Each manuscript will be pre-evaluated by an editor in terms of scope and scientific soundness and if fulfilling all requirements in line with the journal guidelines, it will be sent to review and will be assigned at least 2 reviewers (anonymous to the authors) following the double-blind peer-review process. The reviewers can be members of the Reviewer Board, volunteer reviewers, or reviewers suggested by the correponding Author of manuscript.
Authors are welcome to suggest 2-3 suitable reviewers, who are located in different countries/regions from the author group, when they submit their manuscript by providing in the covering letter their names, institutions and e-mail addresses. When suggesting reviewers, authors should make sure they have a high degree of expertise and independence in the field of the study presented. Please note that suggestions are welcome and may speed up the peer review process but the journal cannot guarantee to use them.
Scientific referees will return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Most of the referees’ comments are shared with the author. Associate Editors will evaluate the referees’ comments, the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal before sending a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees’ comments. Referees’ evaluations include an explicit recommendation regarding the evaluated manuscript. The role of the referees is advisory, and the editor has no formal obligation to accept the referees’ opinions. If revisions are requested, the author is prompted to address any queries. or revision request from the editorial board.
Reviewers’ Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality:
- Peer Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists.
- Invited Reviewers may request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.
- Manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers must respect the author’s rights by not publicly discussing the author’s work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published.
- Reviewers will be asked to check the statistical methods, and the manuscript may be sent for specialist statistical review if considered necessary.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively and Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated. Reviewers are asked also to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on whether the manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. 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.
- Until the article is published, Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the Abstract, confidential. Reviewers should also be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments.
- Additional comments can be reported separately to the Editor-in Chief on the scientific content of the manuscript: areas of weakness, methodological inaccuracies, relevance of the review topic, and rating of manuscript.
- Peer review reports are sent to authors along with the editorial decision on their manuscript.
- Reviewers must not make copies of the manuscript and are prohibited from sharing them with others.
- Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews.
The reviewers’ identity remains anonymous. If different evaluation is reported by the reviewers (positive-negative), the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer for an extra opinion before making a decision.
After considering the reviewer reports the editor will make one of the following decisions:
- Request for minor revision, where authors revise their article to address specific concern
- Request for major revision, where authors revise their article to address significant concerns and perhaps undertake additional work.
- Rejected, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision by email to the corresponding author including any relevant reviewer comments. In cases where the editor has requested changes to the article, authors will be invited to prepare a revision. The decision e-mail specifies a deadline for submission of a revised article. Once resubmitted, the article may be sent back by Editor-in-Chief to the original reviewers.
A revised article should be submitted via the revision link provided in the decision letter, and not as a new article. The revision should also be accompanied by a point-by-point response to referees explaining how the article has been changed.
Final Submission and Acceptance
When the submitted article will be formally accepted for publication, the accepted date stated on the article will be the date on which the editor send to the corresponding author the paper acceptance mail.
Before final publication, the corresponding author will be invited by the Publisher to make the final check of manuscript. Only minor changes or scientific errors are permitted. All corrections must be approved by the publishing team.
Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not accepted during and after the acceptance of manuscript.