The Journal follows a standard peer blind review process.
Authors are required to declare any conflict of interests with potential reviewers to the editor in chief while submitting the manuscript.
Both the reviewer(s) and the author are anonymous in this model.
Author anonymity limits reviewer bias
Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
Bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our double-blind peer review guidelines.
The review Process goes as follows:
The manuscript is first reviewed by the journal editorial office for compliance authors guidelines and proper formatting, language and editing standards
The manuscript may be subject to Plagiarism Check
An editor is assigned the manuscript and evaluates whether the manuscript can be sent to reviewers
If the manuscript can be sent for review, at least 2 reviewers are selected and sent an invitation that may include the manuscript title, abstract and summary.
If no response to the invitation is received, a manuscript can be rejected at this stage for lack of interest of the scientific community in the manuscript topic or presentation.
Up on receiving of the reviews, the assigned editor can take the decision of acceptance, rejection, or revising the manuscript.
The editor in chief is finally contacted for approval or denial of the decision.
In case of required revision, the author is required to perform the revision, submit a revised version and the editor and reviewers previously involved may be contacted for re-evaluation following the same process above.
Top