Journal financing

papers review process

The Review Process

Journal operates a rigorous and transparent peer-review process that aims to maximize quality. Peer-review is handled by researchers and scholars.

Peer-review is a double-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and Special Issue topics, and appointing new Editorial Board members.

A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart left. The following provides notes on each step.


Immediately after submission, the journal will perform an initial check to assess:

  • Overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal;
  • Manuscript adherence to high quality research and ethical standards;
  • Standards of rigor to qualify for further review.

The academic editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, or the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member in case of a conflict of interest and of regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows, will be notified of the submission and invited to perform a check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer-review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review. 


From submission to final decision or publication, journal staff member coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors and reviewers. The process is blind, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer and the reviewer reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity. At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. Suggestions of reviewers can be made by the academic editor during pre-check. Alternatively, journal will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles. The following checks are applied to all reviewers:

  • That they hold no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
  • That they hold a PhD;
  • They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper;

Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:

  • Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;
  • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer-review;
  • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 10–20 days to write their review in accordance with review report. Extensions can be granted on request. For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within 10 days. Extensions can also be granted on request.


In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, journal will request that the author revise the paper before referring to the academic editor. In cases of conflicting review reports, or where there are one or more recommendations for rejection, the academic editor will be requested for their judgement before a decision about revisions is communicated to authors. Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. By default, reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection will be sent the revised manuscript. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided.

Editor Decision

Acceptance decisions on manuscripts can be taken by the academic editor after peer-review once a minimum of two review reports have been received. Acceptance decisions are taken by an academic editor (the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board member). Guest Editors are not able to take decisions on their own papers which will instead be assigned to a suitable Editorial Board member. When making a decision, we expect that the academic editor checks the following:

  • The suitability of selected reviewers;
  • Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
  • Overall scientific quality of the paper.

The academic editor can select from the following options: Accept in current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, ask author for revision, or ask for an additional reviewer. Reviewers make recommendations, and the Editors-in-Chief or academic editors are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision for the benefit of the authors and reviewers. In some instances, an academic editor supports a decision of manuscript acceptance despite a reviewer recommendation to reject. Journal will seek second independent opinion from an Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief before communicating a final decision to the authors. Editorial Board members (including Editors-in-Chief) are not involved in the processing of their own academic work. Their submissions are assigned and revised by at least two independent reviewers. Decisions are made by other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors. Journal aims to publish all manuscripts that are scientifically correct, and do not artificially increase journal rejection rates, allowing the reader community at large to define impact.


Journal’s in-house teams perform production on all manuscripts, including language editing and copy editing. Language editing is carried out by professional editing staff

Editorial Independence

All articles published by journal are peer-reviewed and assessed by our independent Editorial Boards. When making a decision, we make it based solely upon:

  • The suitability of selected reviewers;
  • Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
  • Overall scientific quality of the paper.