Peer review

  1. Author submits (revised) manuscript
    • The process begins when an author submits a new manuscript or a revision of a previous manuscript to the journal system
    • Authors typically upload documents through the journal's online manuscript management system
    • The manuscript must follow the journal's formatting guidelines and topic scope
    • The system checks administrative completeness such as author statement forms, conflict of interest disclosures, and research ethics
  2. Assigned to editor
    • The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor briefly reviews the manuscript to determine its suitability with the journal's scope
    • The manuscript is then assigned to a topic/field/section editor who has expertise in the research area
    • The appointed editor will be responsible for overseeing the entire review process for this manuscript
  3. Editorial assessment
    • The editor conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript to assess:
      • Compatibility with the journal's scope and mission
      • General scientific quality
      • Research originality
      • Compliance with research ethics guidelines
      • Adherence to journal format
      • Potential impact and significance in its field
  4. Triage decision: desk reject or send to referees
    • Based on the initial assessment, the editor decides:
      • Desk reject: Rejecting the manuscript without sending it to reviewers (usually due to incompatibility with journal scope, inadequate quality, or serious methodological issues)
      • Proceed to peer review: Selecting and inviting appropriate reviewers to evaluate the manuscript in depth
      • In some cases, requesting initial revisions before proceeding to the review process
  5. External peer review
    • Typically 2-3 independent reviewers (sometimes more) are invited to evaluate the manuscript
    • Reviewers provide in-depth evaluation of:
      • Research methodology
      • Validity of results
      • Data interpretation
      • Conclusions and significance
      • References and contribution to existing literature
      • Presentation quality (structure, language, illustrations)
    • Reviewers provide recommendations (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject) along with detailed comments
  6. Editor assesses review reports
    • The editor analyzes all incoming review reports
    • Evaluates alignment or differences of opinion among reviewers
    • Considers reviewers' comments and recommendations along with the editor's personal assessment
    • Decides on the next action based on the collection of feedback
    • In special cases, the editor may seek additional reviewers or consultation with other editors
  7. Final decision communicated to author and reviewers
    • The editor communicates the final decision, which typically includes:
      • Accept (without revisions): Rarely occurs on first submission
      • Accept with minor revisions: Small changes are required
      • Major revisions required: Substantial changes needed before further consideration
      • Reject: Manuscript is not suitable for publication for various reasons
    • Authors receive comments from reviewers (usually anonymized)
    • Reviewers are also informed about the final decision to close the review cycle