Peer-review Process

This journal maintains a double-blind peer review policy, in which both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. To facilitate this, authors have anonymized their manuscripts to ensure that their identity is not been given away.

Peer review is an important process of evaluation, designed to keep the quality of scholarly work high. The process aims to give constructive feedback to the authors, so that their work can become of the highest academic standard possible. Peer reviews are also helping editors to decide the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal.

Timely Reviews

We ask reviewers to provide review reports in a timely manner, to provide a high quality publishing service that benefits the scientific community. Please contact the editorial office if you need a deadline extension of your review.

Submission to final publication of the manuscript is usually completed within 6 to 8 weeks.

Manuscript Submission and Peer-Review System

EditorialPark system is used by authors, reviewers and Editors/Associate Editors for all editorial management operations:

  • Authors may submit new manuscripts, track the editorial status of submissions, send revisions,
  • Reviewers may upload comments and recommendations, claim review certificates,
  • Editors/Associate Editors may assign reviewers, manage editorial processes.

Initial Verification 

All incoming manuscripts are initially checked to make sure they meet the submission criteria. Adjustments may be requested from authors to comply with journals standards. Rapid rejection or alternative journal suggestions for out-of-scope manuscripts in this stage ensure the access of the authors to timely peer-review.

Editor and Reviewer Assigment 

Manuscripts that pass the initial verification are assigned to Editor/Asssociate Editor that best fits the subject area of the manuscript, which in turn assign appropriate reviewers for peer review.

Manuscripts are evaluated by two or more reviewers selected for their expertise in the subject matter of the article.

Reviewers will remain anonymous. Based on reviewer comments and recommendations, and their own evaluations, Editor/Associate Editor makes one of the following decisions on the manuscript:

  • Accept
  • Accept pending minor revision
  • Reconsider pending major revision
  • Reject

Revisions should be prepared according to the following guidelines:

  • Modifications to the original submission should be clearly marked in the revised manuscript. A separate text color or background color may be used to identify modified parts of the text.
  • Answers to reviewer and Editor/Associate Editor should be prepared as a separate table.

As a journal policy, we do not intervene with the editorial autonomy of our editors.

Conflicts of Interest

If a reviewer holds a conflict of interest that may prejudice the review report, the reviewer can contact the editorial office or reject the review invitation. Conflict of interests occur when professional judgement is influenced by another interest, for example a financial relationship, an intellectual belief or a personal relationship or rivalry. To keep the standards of credibility high, we ask reviewers to be aware of a potential conflict of interest and to inform us about it.


Reviewers should never share the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, with someone else. Double blind peer review is a confidential process in which both the author and reviewer should be careful to keep the content confidential. Reviewers must inform the editorial office if they prefer a student or colleague to write the review on their behalf.

A Step by Step Reviewer’s Guide 

  1. Investigate the article’s content and the journal to which it is submitted:
    • Does the article meet the submission criteria (length, scope and presentation) of the journal?
  2. Make an assessment of the article:
    • Is the methodology of the article accurate?
      • Is the research question clearly formulated?
      • Are the research components well-defined?
      • Are hypotheses identified as such?
      • Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results?
    • What is the quality of the presentation?
      • Is the data presented in an appropriate manner?
      • Is the English level sufficient?
    • Does the article have the highest level of scientific soundness?
      • Is the research performed with the highest technical standards?
      • Are the data robust enough to draw conclusions?
      • Are the references to other scholarly works sufficient and complete?
      • Is the article free of fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior?
    • Is the research relevant?
      • Is the same information already published before, either by the same author or by another scientist?
      • Is the information novel and is there an overall benefit of publishing this work?
  3. Write a review report:
    • Follow the steps on the review form.
      Keep in mind: As a reviewer, you may disagree with the author’s opinions, but if they are consistent with the available evidence, you should allow them to stand. If you provide feedback, try to give constructive criticism. Positive feedback as well as negative feedback can help an author to improve the manuscript.
    • Make a recommendation to Editor/Associate Editor:
      • Accept: if the manuscript can be published in its current form.
      • Accept after minor changes: if the manuscript needs some light revisions before publishing it.
      • Reject and start review process again after major changes: if the manuscript needs major revisions before publishing it.
      • Reject: if the paper is not suitable for publication within this journal or if the revisions that would have to be undertaken are too fundamental.
  4. Some things to keep in mind:
    • Use appropriate language in addressing your comments to the author. Carefully construct your comments so that the author understands fully what to improve. Generalized and vague statements should be avoided, along with negative comments that are not supported with arguments. Journal editors never edit reviewer comments and thus we ask you to use appropriate language. Confidential comments to the editors can be made on the review form in the special box assigned for it.
    • If you have time, give suggestions to the author how to improve clarity, succinctness and overall quality of the manuscript.