Peer Review:

Peer Review Model:
All submitted articles will be processed under the double-blind peer review process (double-anonymous peer review process), which means that both the reviewer(s) and author(s) identities are concealed from the reviewer(s), and vice versa, throughout the review process. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers.

Initial Submission:
After the submitting the article, the article will be allocated to an editor, who will read the article very carefully and observe whether it is appropriate for the journal. On initial assessment, the articles will be sent to external reviewers that are within scope of the journal, technically sound, and scientifically valid. Those articles judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Peer Review Process:
The peer review process is as follows:

  1. Vetting by the Editorial Office to ensure that the article conforms to the basic requirement of the research. This vetting process includes processing articles (content quality, scope of the article, and similarity) using plagiarism software.
  2. Review by a General Editor who will take a decision on whether to send it out for perpetual review. if an article is deemed of insufficient quality or novelty, it can be rejected by the General Editor in conjunction with an Associate Editor at this stage. The author will be informed of this decision with a brief note spelling out the reason for rejection. If the article passes this stage, it will be reviewed.
  3. The General Editor delegates the decision-making authority to an Associate Editor. Two external reviewers will be selected by the Associate Editor and the General Editor will make the final decision.
  4. Reviewers are expected to respond in 3-4 weeks so that the article can be reviewed in time. Reviewer reports are typically 2 pages (or 500 words maximum). The journal applies the following policy if reviewers are unable to complete the review:
    1. If a reviewer indicates that she/he is unable to submit a report in the 3-4 weeks of this process, a new reviewer will be selected.
    2. If a reviewer appears to be unable to submit a report after some time, the General Editor may decide that the Associate Editor should provide his/her view on the article in a brief report, which is submitted to the General Editor.
  5. An article may be rejected on the basis of one negative review, especially if this review comes from one of the Associate Editor.
  6. In exceptional cases, an article may be assigned a ‘revise and resubmit’. Such a decision will only be offered if there is a reasonable expectation that the author can meet the expectations set out in a letter with meaningful guidelines for improving the initial submission. Typically, a revised article will only be reviewed by the Associate Editor or one of the referees.
  7. The editor will also continually assess the quality levels of the refereeing procedure and annually review the Associate Editor team to ensure that its range of expertise is aligned with submission and research trends.

For all submitted articles, authors are obligated to participate in a peer review process, follow publication conventions, make the requested changes and correct mistakes. When changes are asked for, the authors have a certain timeline for submitting their modifications.

Decision After Review:
After considering the reviewer reports the editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept outright.
  • Accept, with or without editorial revisions.
  • Request a minor revision, where authors revise their article to address specific concerns
  • Request a major revision, where authors revise their article to address significant concerns and perhaps undertake additional work.
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission.
  • Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.

Revision/ Correction:
In cases where the editor has requested changes to the article, authors will be invited to prepare a revision. The decision letter will specify a deadline for submission of a revised article. Once resubmitted, the article may then be sent back to the original reviewer or to new reviewer, at the editor discretion.

A revised article should be submitted via the revision link (or as per guidance) provided in the decision letter, and not as a new article. The revision should also be accompanied by a point-by-point response to referees explaining how the article has been changed. 

Final Submission and Acceptance:
When all editorial issues are resolved, the submitted article will be formally accepted for publication. The date stated on the article received will be the date on which the original submission passed our standard quality control checks, which are based on the journal’s submission criteria. The accepted date stated on the article will be the date on which the editor sent the acceptance letter.

After acceptance, authors are sent proof of their article but only changes to the title, author list or scientific errors will be permitted. All corrections must be approved by the publishing team. The Journal reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures.

Appeals:
Even in cases where journal does not invite resubmission of an article, authors may ask the editor to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals often take several weeks. Only one appeal is permitted for each article, and appeals can only take place after peer review. Final decisions on appeals will be made by the editor handling the article.

Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the relevant editor is convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake. Consideration of an appeal is merited if a referee/reviewer made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that referee’s opinion would have changed the original decision. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome.

If an appeal merits further consideration, the editor may send the authors’ response and the revised article out for further peer review.

Timing for Editorial Decisions and Publication:
The Journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and recognizes that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to both authors and the scientific community. The Journal therefore asks reviewers to respond promptly within the agreed days. If a reviewer indicates that he/she is unable to submit the report within 3-4 weeks of this process, a new reviewer will be selected.

Article Assessment/ Review Report:
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

The determination of a review is to deliver the editors with the data they need to reach a decision, but the review should also educate authors on how they can reinforce their article to the point where it may be adequate. As far as possible, in a negative review authors should be told about the major weaknesses of their article, so that the rejected author can understand the basis for the decision and see more broadly how to improve the article for publication elsewhere. what should be done. The reviewers should provide an assessment of the various aspects of an article:

  1. Key Results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
  2. Validity: Does the article have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
  3. Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references. 
  4. Data & Methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. 
  5. Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. 
  6. Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
  7. Suggested improvements: Please list additional experiments or data that could help strengthen the work in revision.
  8. References: Does article reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded?
  9. Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear and accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
  10. Inflammatory Material: Does the article contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous? It should be in English only.
  11. Please indicate any particular part of the article, data, or analyses that is outside the scope of expertise.
  12. Please address any other specific question asked by the editor via email.

Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the referees’ thought process. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the article and that the referees feel qualified to comment on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every article, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific refereeing standards, reviewer can contact the editor for guidance.

It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Referees should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the scientific content of an article.

Recommended Reviewers:
As part of the submission process, you will be asked to provide the names of X peers who could be called upon to review your article. Recommended reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the article. Please be aware of any conflicts of interest when recommending reviewers. Examples of conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) the below:

  • The reviewer should have no prior knowledge of your submission.
  • The reviewer should not have recently collaborated with any of the authors.
  • Reviewer nominees from the same institution as any of the authors are not permitted

Please note that the Editors are not obliged to invite any recommended/opposed reviewers to assess your article.