Peer Review Process

The editors-in-chief will conduct an initial evaluation of each submitted manuscript based on its appropriateness to the focus and scope of the journal. If the submitted manuscript meets these criteria, the Editors-in-Chief will assign it to one of the members of the Editorial Team (editors), who will conduct a second evaluation of the manuscript based on the scientific merit and validity of the paper and its methodology, the relevance of the paper, the interest of the topic to the reader, and the presentation and comprehensibility of the paper itself.

Suppose the submitted manuscript is suitable for peer review submission. In that case, it will be reviewed by two members of the Reviewers Committee (external reviewers) of the journal who have no potential conflicts of interest. Suppose the editors need help finding a specific reviewer for the submitted manuscript. In that case, they will seek another specialist on the topic of equal reputation based on their expertise and position in their field. The peer review process is double-blind.

Reviewers will send their recommendations and reports to the editor, providing general comments to the editor and both general and author(s) specific comments. Constructive comments that may help authors improve their work are transmitted anonymously (even if the editor does not accept the submitted manuscript). 

The assigned editor will communicate the overall outcome of the evaluation (rejected, accepted, or accepted with modifications), including the reviewer's comments. Authors will be responsible for making suggested changes or responding to requests from reviewers and the editor throughout the review process. Revised manuscripts may be subject to additional peer review if appropriate. 

The assigned editor will comprehensively evaluate the paper, review reports, respond to reviewers, make corrections, recommend to the Editor-in-Chief, and make the final decision on whether or not to reject the manuscript. The final decision on acceptability for publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Timelines: The initial review decision takes approximately 1 month. Double-blind review takes 45 to 60 days as long as the reviewers agree on their opinion. If an additional referee is needed, an additional 30 days will be required for a third reviewer to evaluate the manuscript. The final decision remains in the hands of the editor upon receipt of the reviewers' reports, and in case of controversies, the editorial board decides on the final decision.