Peer Review Process

  1. Submission of Paper: The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal.
  2. Editorial Office Assessment: The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal's Author Guidelines.
  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief and Board Members: The EIC checks assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality and merits.
  4. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until two reviewers are secured.
  5. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation to review. If possible, upon refusal, they may also suggest alternative reviewers.
  6. Review is Conducted: The reviewer read the manuscript thoroughly and comprehensively taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with the reviewer's recommendation (e.g. to revise, accept or reject the paper).
  7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
  8. The Decision is Communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Comments will be anonymous.
  9. Production: If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor