Peer Review
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 or the Associated Editor
The Editor-in-Chief or the Associated Editor 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. Invitation to Reviewers
The 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.
4. 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.
5. Conduct of the Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a peer review form and make a recommendation to the journal for publication:
– Accepted in the initial form without revision
– Accepted with revisions
– Rejected
6. Evaluation of the Reviews and Publication Decision
The the Associate Editor consider the returned reviews in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, who makes an overall decision on publication.
7. Communication of the Decision
The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author.
8. 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.
