All contributions submitted to the journal that are selected for peer review are sent to two or more independent reviewers, selected by the editors. From different types of peer-review, Double-Blind Review was selected; both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous. Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on the author’s country of origin or previous controversial work. Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation. The journal is committed to providing an efficient service for both, authors and readers. Our blind peer-review system along with the editorial board of independent editors provides a means of rapid and fair publication decisions.
Refined Editorial Workflow for Ensuring Scholarly Excellence
1. Initial Evaluation:
Manuscripts undergo a preliminary review to ensure compliance with ethical standards, authorship policies, and the absence of plagiarism. Constructive feedback is provided to authors where necessary, emphasizing ethical integrity and adherence to publishing guidelines.
2. Expert Editorial Assessment:
Submissions passing the initial evaluation are assigned to Editorial Board Members, who are active researchers in relevant fields. They assess the suitability of the manuscript for peer review, considering expertise, conflicts of interest, and author suggestions for potential reviewers. Authors may also exclude up to three reviewers or laboratories. Confidentiality is maintained throughout the process.
3. Rigorous Peer Review:
Expert peer reviewers assess the manuscript’s technical accuracy, scientific validity, and methodological soundness. Detailed feedback is provided in comprehensive written reports, ensuring high standards of analysis and ethical practices are upheld.
4. Transparent Decision-Making:
The Editorial Board Member overseeing the manuscript decides on acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection based on peer review feedback. Decisions are typically communicated within 45 days of submission to ensure a timely review process.
5. Revisions and Final Review:
If revisions are required, authors must respond point-by-point to reviewers' comments within the given deadline. Manuscripts may undergo additional review rounds if necessary. The process aims to minimize multiple revision cycles, ensuring efficient publication.
6. Publication Preparation:
Once all revisions are resolved, the manuscript is accepted and prepared for online publication. The authors review the proof, focusing on scientific accuracy. Limited changes, such as those to the title or author list, are permitted at this stage with publisher approval.
7. Appeals:
Authors may appeal decisions if they believe rejection resulted from misconceptions or bias. Appeals are subject to strict criteria and are limited to one per manuscript. The Editorial Board Member responsible for the manuscript evaluates appeals for validity, with final decisions contingent on evidence of errors or bias.
This editorial process ensures transparency, fairness, and scholarly excellence, allowing the scientific community to assess the impact of published research.
The full peer-review process including editorial workflow can be understood through the following flow chart:
