All articles published in our journals undergo a formal peer-review process to ensure a fair, rigorous, and transparent assessment of submitted work.
Each manuscript is initially evaluated by an editor to assess its suitability for the journal, its alignment with the journal’s scope, and its scientific quality. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s requirements and author guidelines are sent for external peer review and are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.
Depending on the editorial policy of the individual journal, peer review may be conducted as either single-blind or double-blind. The specific peer-review model used by each journal is clearly stated in the relevant journal’s Instructions for Authors and editorial policies.
Reviewers may include members of the Reviewer Board, volunteer reviewers, or other qualified experts selected by the editors. Authors may also suggest 2–3 potential reviewers when submitting their manuscript by including their names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses in the cover letter. Suggested reviewers should have relevant expertise in the subject area and no conflicts of interest. Reviewer suggestions are welcome and may help facilitate the review process; however, the journal is under no obligation to use them.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript, and to provide constructive comments and recommendations for improvement. Reviewer comments are generally shared with the authors.
The final decision on a manuscript is made by the editor or associate editors, who consider the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the manuscript, and its relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final editorial decision rests with the journal’s editors.
If revisions are requested, authors are invited to respond to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and to submit a revised version of the manuscript.
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:
- Accepted
- 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.
Revision/ Correction
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.