Our peer review policy is designed to ensure the publication of high-quality content while maintaining a fair and rigorous evaluation process. Manuscripts submitted for consideration undergo the comprehensive process outlined below.
Double-Blind Review Method:
To eliminate bias and ensure impartial evaluation, our peer review process follows a double-blind reviewing method where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.
Each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor before the peer review. While acceptance isn't determined at this stage, rejections may result from a lack of originality, significant scientific deficiencies, or a misalignment with the journal's scope.
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field relevant to the manuscript. Our diverse reviewer board comprises experts from various domains and external referees are invited as well.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality in reviewing a manuscript. This maintains transparency and ensures credible evaluations.
Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing various fundamental aspects of a manuscript:
- Novelty and Methodological Soundness: Reviewers evaluate the originality and strength of the methodology employed in the research.
- Ethical Compliance: Reviewers ensure that the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines and maintains the highest standards of research integrity.
- Presentation and Conclusion: Reviewers assess the clarity and efficacy with which results are presented and conclusions are drawn from the findings.
- Appropriate Citation: Reviewers check that prior relevant work is appropriately cited and referenced, acknowledging the existing body of knowledge.
- Optional Language Enhancement: Although not obligatory, reviewers might offer suggestions for improving the manuscript's language and readability.
In addition to these points, it's also worth considering the reviewer's assessment of the research's significance, relevance to the field, potential impact, and the overall contribution the manuscript makes to advancing knowledge.
Handling Conflicting Reports:
In cases where referee reports present conflicting feedback, a third expert's input is sought to facilitate an informed decision.
The Editor bases their decision on the collective input from reviewers and their own assessment. Three outcomes are possible:
- Accepted: The manuscript is approved for publication. Minor changes or revisions may be required before final publication.
- Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the publication standards.
- Revision Needed: Authors are requested to address reviewers' feedback and suggestions. The revised manuscript undergoes a second round of review by initial referees.
Reviewer and Editor Interaction:
While reviewers provide expert opinions, the final determination rests with the Editor, who considers both expert advice and their own evaluation.
The review process comprises the following estimated timeframes:
- 1 week: Selection of appropriate reviewers.
- 2-4 weeks: Peer review process duration.
- 2 weeks: Authors' window for submitting revised manuscripts (if needed).
Please note that the review process time may vary based on reviewer responses and manuscript complexity.
Publication Ethics and Adherence to COPE Guidelines:
We are committed to upholding ethical standards in research and publication. This includes addressing issues related to plagiarism, data fabrication, proper citation practices, and adherence to research ethics as outlined in the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers by COPE.
Response to Reviewer Comments:
Authors are expected to thoughtfully address reviewer comments during the revision process. They shouldimplement changes and respond to each comment. The revisions should be highlighted and the responses to review comments submitted along with the revision.
In the event of concerns regarding the review process or decisions, an appeals process is available. Authors can submit an appeal outlining their concerns and providing any additional clarifications.
We are dedicated to maintaining the confidentiality of the review process and upholding the integrity of manuscripts throughout the evaluation. Our goal is to provide authors with constructive feedback and a transparent review process that fosters the dissemination of impactful research.