Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted for publication in the Research Articles section of the journal undergo double-blind peer review to ensure the validity, quality and originality of the published material.

The peer review process consists of the following steps:

1. Submission of Manuscript

  • The author submits the manuscript to the journal via an online form.

    2. First Appraisal of the Manuscript by the Editor-in-Chief

    • The Editor-in-Chief checks that the manuscript is suitable for the journal and meets the basic requirements of the Author Guidelines. If this is not the case, the manuscript may be rejected without further review.

    3. The Editor-in-Chief Assigns an Associate Editor

    • The Editor-in-Chief appoints an Associate Editor to manage the peer review process.

    4. Invitation to Reviewers

    • The appointed Associate Editor sends out invitations for peer review to individuals who are experts in the field of the study being reviewed and who are independent of the author. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

    5. Response to Invitation

    • The reviewer considers the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. He/she then accepts or declines the peer review invitation. If possible, when declining, he/she might also suggest alternative reviewers.

    6. Conduct of the Peer Review

    • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a peer review form and make a recommendation to the journal for publication:

      1. Accepted in the initial form without revision
      2. Accepted with minor revisions
      3. Accepted with major revisions
      4. Rejected

    7. Evaluation of the Reviews and Publication Decision

    • The Associate Editor in charge of the peer review process considers the returned reviews in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, who makes an overall decision on publication. If the reviews differ significantly, the Editor-in-Chief may ask an additional reviewer to provide a third opinion before making a decision.

    8. Communication of the Decision

    • The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author.

    9. Next Steps

    • If accepted without revision , the manuscript will be sent to production.
    • If the manuscript has been returned for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief should include in the decision email constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article.
    • If the paper has been returned for a major revision, the reviewers should review the new revised version of the manuscript.
    • If only minor revisions have been requested this follow-up review could be carried out by the Associate Editor.