The submitted papers are subject to a peer review process. The purpose of peer review is to assist the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving the paper.
A manuscript goes through a double-blind peer-review meaning that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews is 6 weeks. Note: Can be modified during the editorial process.
The choice of reviewers is at the editors' discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must have no affiliation with the authors' institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.
Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document.
Authors submit manuscripts to Editorial Office via the online system. The acknowledgment letter should be sent to the author to confirm the receipt of the manuscript. Manuscripts that are not suitable for publication in the Journal are rejected. A rejection letter shall be sent to the author stating the reason for rejection. If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal and formally abides by Journal requirements, it shall be sent out for review. Depending on the type of paper, it could be accepted for publication immediately (invited editorial, book review, etc.).
Based on the reviewers’ comments, the Chief Editor makes a decision to:
An acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final manuscript is forwarded to production. Sometimes, the authors are requested to revise in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit the updated version of their manuscript. The time for review can be set to 1-2 weeks depending on the type of additional data, information or argument required. The authors are requested to make substantial revisions to their manuscripts and resubmit for a new evaluation.
All of the reviewers of a paper act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the editors may assign additional reviewers or make the decision themselves.
The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.