Peer-review process

The peer review process includes the following steps:

1) Initial per review process by the editor

2) Double Blind Review

3) Editor's Revision and Decision

 

1. Initial review by the editor (Completion time - 5-7 days)

After the article is submitted to our journal, the high qualified journal editor screens the manuscript and decides whether it is good enough quality and whether it follows the ethical policies of the journal. Unsuitable articles may be rejected without peer review at the editor’s discretion. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. No judgment on the potential impact of the work will be made at this stage.

Based on initial screening one of the following decisions could be reached:

▪ Paper rejection. If the manuscript clearly lies outside the scope of the journal or the submission was not in conformity with established requirements;

▪ Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): the journal will publish the article if the authors make changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors. The author must make all requested updates and resubmit research. After corrections are made, editor will review updated version;

▪ Appoint Reviewers – to go through peer-review.

 

2. Double blind review (Completion time - 4-8 weeks)

Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review. A double-blind peer-review process is applied, where authors' identities are not known to reviewers. Usually, reviewers are well-known experts in the topic of the submitted manuscript and have publications in the field of research.

As result of this stage reviewer could make one of the following decisions:

▪ reject the article;

▪ revise and resubmit;

▪ accept with minor changes.

▪ accept with major changes.

Above recommendations are anonymously communicated to Authors and are reviewed by the editor prior to reaching final decision on article publishing. If the editor suspects any reviewer bias or non-conformity with ethical norms, he/she can appoint a different or additional reviewer. The same procedure could be used if reports from each reviewer are considerably diverse.

Authors are responsible for making any necessary changes based on the reviewer’s comments and then resubmitting the paper within 7 days of receipt of the notification for minor revisions and within 20 days for major revisions. Revision process might comprise multiple attempts until editor is satisfied with all edits and is able to reach his/her decision to accept article for publishing.

All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point way. In case of the authors’ disagreement with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.

 

3. Editor's decision and revision (Completion time 5-7 days)

After completion of all procedures listed above, editorial office will issue letters stating one of the following decisions:

▪ the article is rejected with clearly stated reasons for rejection;

▪ the article is accepted for publication.

If the article is accepted for publication, it goes to the next stage: Publication process

 

Reasons for rejection

▪ Lack of scientific significance or lack of originality;

▪ the manuscript is outside of aim and scope for the Publication;

▪ the submission does not conform to the formal requirements or ethical guideline of the Publication;

▪ the author didn’t make the necessary changes based on the reviewer’s comments and the Journal’s policy;

▪ the work contains certain emotional content that could mislead readers or is insulting;

▪ the work reveals confidential information without appropriate authorization.