The journal uses a single-blind peer review model: editors and reviewers have access to the authors' names and institutions, while the identities of the reviewers are not revealed to the authors.
All research articles submitted directly to the journal are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor. Articles found appropriate in terms of scope, language, adherence to journal guidelines, ethics, and scientific quality are subjected to external peer review and are evaluated by at least three qualified experts.
Review process and deadlines
The reviewers are chosen based on a range of factors, including expertise, recommendations, and knowledge of the reviewer's performance in the past. Reviewers are typically given at least 14 days to finish the review and upload comments onto the submission system.
Along with a detailed review, the reviewers choose one of the four options for the course of action they recommend for the manuscript:
- accept without any changes;
- accept with minor revisions;
- revise and resubmit with major revisions;
After the review reports from all reviewers have been submitted, the decision to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
If the manuscript is returned for revision, the authors are provided with the reviewer reports detailing the specific revisions that should be made to the submission. The authors are then expected to provide a detailed response to all reviewer comments within 21 days, and the paper is sent to the reviewers who assess whether their suggestions have been adequately addressed.
An appeal may be filed if the authors believe that a mistake has been made in rejecting a paper (for example, due to factual errors in reviewer reports). The decision to consider the appeal is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Associate Editors.
The final publication decision is approved by the Editor-in-Chief together with the Editorial Board.