Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Review process

  1. Manuscript Submission
  • Authors submit their manuscript via the journal's online submission system.
  • Submissions should be anonymized, with all author names and affiliations removed, to facilitate a double-blind review process.
  1. Initial Editorial Assessment:
  • The editorial team conducts an initial check to ensure that the submission is complete, adheres to submission guidelines, and fits within the journal's scope.
  • Manuscripts that meet the basic requirements and standards are accepted for peer review.
  • Handling editor is selected (Editor-in-Chief could be also a handling editor)
  1. Assignment to Reviewers:
  • The handling editor selects at least two qualified reviewers for the double-blind peer review process.
  • Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
  • Reviewers' identities are kept hidden from the authors and vice versa.
  1. Double-Blind Peer Review:
  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently, assessing its originality, validity, significance, quality and clarity.
  • They provide detailed comments and recommendations: accept, conditionally accept, revise and resubmit, or reject.
  1. Review Evaluation:
  • The handling editor collects and evaluates the reviews.
  • If both reviews are positive, unambiguous and recommend publication, the handling editor proceeds to the next step (based on the Editor-in-Chief decision).
  • If both reviews suggest the necessity to apply minor and/or major changes (reviews) within the paper, the handling editor proceeds in concordance with the reviewers’ decision, i.e., sending the manuscript back to the author(s) for further review (in case of minor reviews: with no necessity of second review; in case of major review: with second review necessary).
  • If the reviews are ambiguous or contradictory, the editor may seek additional reviews to make an informed decision.
  1. Decision by the Editor-in-Chief:
  • The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' feedback.
  • A decision is made based on the reviewers' recommendations, with the requirement that at least two positive reviews are needed to publish the article.
  • The Editor-in-Chief has the final say on the publication of the manuscript, ensuring the integrity of the review process.
  1. Revision and Approval:
  • If revisions are required, the author(s) are asked to revise the manuscript addressing the reviewers' comments.
  • Revised manuscripts are reviewed again by the original or additional reviewers, if necessary.
  • The handling editor verifies that all reviewer concerns are adequately addressed.
  1. Final Decision and Publication:
  • Once the manuscript receives at least two positive reviews and all necessary revisions are satisfactorily made, the Editor-in-Chief gives the final approval for publication.
  • The manuscript moves to proofreading, copyediting, typesetting, and then publication.