Reviewing Process

Once the manuscript has been received by the journal, it will be checked by the Editorial Office whether paper’s composition and arrangement follow the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections, formatting and style requirements. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. It is also very important that the manuscript follows the ethical policies of the journal, otherwise it can be rejected before peer-review. Once a paper passes the first check, Editor-in-Chief with subject expertise assesses the paper and determines whether it is within the journal’s scope and if it could potentially meet the required publication criteria. Any required additional missing information will be solicited from the corresponding author prior to peer review.

Reviewers Recommendation

The handling editor sends invitations to two individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers with good expertise, reputation and relevant previous experience in the manuscript research field. However, authors are also advised to suggest two potential reviewers, respecting conflicts of interest. During the initial submission progress, they can also name potential peer reviewers they would exclude from consideration for their manuscript, which editorial board will respect if it does not interfere with the objective of the submission. Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. If they decline, they should suggest alternative reviewer.

Peer-Review

Once all reviewers are in place, the manuscript is peer reviewed. Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. The main purpose of peer review is to make sure that the manuscripts published in the journal are of the correct quality for the journal’s aims.

Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer. Reviewers take time to read the manuscript several times. A detailed point-by-point review is done, first to determine the validity, significance and originality of the study, and second to provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts. Peer reviewers may point out to any errors that need correcting before publication, or gaps that require more explanation or additional experiments. Also, if some parts of the paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can make suggestions how to improve that and make it easier to read.

Reviewer’s final statements are submitted to the journal, including recommendations to accept, reject or make an additional revision before it is reconsidered. The Editor-in-Chiefs decision is final and the manuscript is either accepted, rejected, or indicated to require revisions for the second round of peer-review.

 Editorial Decision and Revision

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates peer reviewer feedback and his own expert assessment of the manuscript to reach a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision. The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.

One of the following decisions will be made by an editor:

• Accept with minor revisions: This decision means that the editor is satisfied with the scientific quality of your work and the paper requires minor changes for it to be accepted. Authors are given seven days for minor revisions. Usually, the editor goes through the revisions and gives a final approval. The paper will be accepted only if the editor is satisfied with the changes made.
• Accept with major revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author has to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. Also, he or she can provide an explanation or a proof for the part of the paper where author disagrees with revision. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within fifteen days for a second round of peer review. Usually, re-review is sent to the same reviewers, although editor may choose to send it to a different set of reviewers. In the case authors have managed to address all the comments in a satisfactory manner, the manuscript will be accepted, otherwise further revisions may be required, or, in the worst case, the paper might be rejected.
• Reject and Encourage Resubmission: It can happen that the manuscript has been rejected, but the editor is willing to give authors a second chance. If authors decide to accept that offer, they would need to substantially revise the paper based on the reviewer and editor comments, and submit it to the same journal as a new submission. The editor will review the revised paper and send the paper for a new round of peer review if required.
• Reject: If the manuscript has serious flaws, journal will reject it without even reconsidering giving the authors a second chance by implementing major revisions.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. In your request, explain clearly why you are disagreeing with the decision of the editorial board, and provide any new data or information you would like the editor to consider. Any request for a resubmission should be based solely on new information, data, and even additional research that you’ve conducted. Address any shortcoming of your manuscript and provide point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments.

The Editor-in-Chief of the journal will forward the manuscript and relating information (including the identities of the referees) to an Editorial Board member. The Editorial Board member will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage will be final and cannot be revoked.