This journal uses a double-blind process, i.e., the identities of the reviewer and the author remain hidden between them throughout the review process. To make this possible, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in such a way that their identities are not revealed.
After a paper is submitted, the editorial board decides whether the paper is acceptable. If the submitted paper meets the submission requirements, reviewers are selected and assigned to review the paper. The reviewers are prominent scientists and experts with an established scientific track record that guarantees their competence in reviewing scientific papers.
Each submission is reviewed by at least two reviewers.
The review criterion is scientific and formal appropriateness for the journal's mission.
Based on the relevant factors of paper evaluation, the reviewers submit one of three possible proposals: the paper is acceptable for publication; the paper requires changes and additions; the paper is not acceptable for publication.
If two reviewers provide a negative evaluation of a paper, the submitting author will be informed that the paper has not been accepted for publication.
Additional peer review is required when a paper has one negative evaluation. The additional review will be conducted by a new reviewer or a member of Editorial Board.
Reviewers’ opinions and suggestions are communicated to the author, who is then required to make the necessary adjustments together with other authors, as instructed by the reviewers.
If the author disagrees with the reviewers' suggestions, the Editor-in-Chief reconciles the different opinions.
The capacity to publish papers in the journal is limited. It is entirely possible that papers recommended for publication by reviewers will not be published due to space limitations. We make every effort to publish all eligible papers, but the Editor-in-Chief reserves the final decision on publication.
