Peer review process
In order to ensure the scientific validity, scholarly quality, and originality of the published research, all manuscripts submitted to the Research Articles section of the journal undergo a double-blind peer-review process.
The peer review process consists of the following steps:
1. SUBMISSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT
The author submits the manuscript to the journal via the online submission form.
2. INITIAL ASSESSMENT BY THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
The Editor-in-Chief examines the manuscript to determine whether it falls within the scope of the journal and meets the basic requirements set out in the Instructions for Authors. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.
3. INVITATION OF REVIEWERS
If the manuscript is considered suitable for further evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance of the Managing Editor, invites at least two experts in the relevant field who are independent of the author to review the submission. Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor, with the involvement of other members of the Editorial Board where necessary. The President of the Editorial Board does not participate in the regular peer-review process of manuscripts; this role is primarily responsible for handling complaints and appeals.
The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.
4. RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION
Invited reviewers consider the invitation on the basis of their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest, and then decide whether to accept or decline the review assignment. Where possible, reviewers who decline may suggest alternative reviewers.
5. CONDUCT OF THE PEER REVIEW
Reviewers assess the manuscript using the journal’s peer-review form and provide a recommendation regarding publication. The possible recommendations are as follows:
- accept without revision
- accept after minor revisions
- revise and resubmit after major revisions
- reject
6. EVALUATION OF THE REVIEWS AND EDITORIAL DECISION
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the reviewers’ reports in consultation with the Managing Editor and, where necessary, with members of the Editorial Board, and then decides on the further course of the manuscript. The decision may be to accept or reject the manuscript, or to request minor or major revisions. Where necessary, an additional external expert may also be invited.
7. COMMUNICATION OF THE DECISION
The Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor communicates the editorial decision to the author and, where applicable, provides the reviewers’ reports and comments intended to assist the author in revising the manuscript.
8. REVISION AND FURTHER REVIEW
If the manuscript is accepted without revision, it proceeds to the technical editing stage of the publication process.
If minor or major revisions are requested, the author is invited to revise the manuscript in light of the reviewers’ comments.
- In the case of major revisions, the revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
- In the case of minor revisions, the revised manuscript may be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor without being returned to the reviewers.
