Review Process

1. Initial check
Editors check the manuscript’s composition and arrangement against the Instructions to Authors to make sure it includes the required sections and stylisations. The quality of the manuscript is not assessed at this point.

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) according to the following criteria: compatibility of the paper’s contents with the journal policy, its originality, importance and timeliness. Submissions with insufficient scientific priority are rejected without being reviewed any further. The remaining manuscripts are forwarded to one of our Section Editors who sends it to at least two independent expert referees for peer review.

2. Review
Double-blind review process is used: peer referee identities are kept confidential for authors, author(s) identities are kept confidential for peer referees. The existence of a paper under review is not revealed to anyone other than peer referees and editorial staff.

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
Reviewers can use the review form available at the link.

The reviewers should expect to receive a resubmitted manuscript for another evaluation, unless they have opted out of further participation.

3. Editorial decision
All the returned reviews are considered before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision. A decision email (accepted/revision/rejected) is sent to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. After the final decision the referee’s identity may be exposed on his/her request.

If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. When revising the manuscript authors are expected to consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Sometimes the resubmitted manuscript may be sent back for re-review. Where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the Editor. The accepted manuscript is sent to production.Review form.docx