Peer Review Statement

All research articles in this journal have undergone a rigorous double-blind peer review, based on the initial editor's screening and double-blind refereeing by at least two expert referees. The purpose of a peer review is to assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author, this may also assist the author in improving the paper. Double-blind peer review means that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews is 4 weeks. 

-The choice of reviewers is at the  Editor’s discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject matter of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors' own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.

-Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with regard to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the  Editor without delay.

-Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the  Editor without delay.

-Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

-Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

The Peer Review Process

Authors submit manuscripts to the Editorial Office via the online system. The author receives confirmation of the receipt of the manuscript from the editorial team. The  Chief  Editor first reviews the manuscript,  and he is assisted by Section Editors (could also be Co- or Associate Editors). The Editor assigns a Section Editor to see the manuscript through the complete review process and return it with a recommendation or decision. The manuscript is checked to see if it meets the scope of the journal and its formal requirements. If it is incorrect or unsuitable, the author should be informed and the manuscript will receive a direct rejection. Manuscripts that are not suitable for publication in the Journal will receive a desc rejection. A  rejection letter is sent to the author stating the reason for rejection. If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal and formally abides by the Instructions to Authors, it is sent out for review. The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and eventually sends a review report to the Editor-in-chief. Based on the reviewers’ comments, the Editor-in-chief decides to:

  • Accept the manuscript without further revision
  • Accept after revision
  • Ask the authors to re-submit
  • Reject

An acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final manuscript is forwarded to production. Sometimes, the authors are requested to revise their manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’  comments and submit the updated version to the Editor-in-chief. The time for review can be set from  4-to 6 weeks depending on the discipline and the type of additional data, information or argument required. The authors are requested to make substantial revisions to their manuscripts and re-submit for a new evaluation.   In the case of rejection, a rejection letter will be sent to the authors and the manuscript will be archived. Reviewers might be informed about the decision.

After review, the manuscript goes to the ‘Copy Editor’ who will correct the manuscript in respect of the correct referencing system in accordance with the journal style and layout. When the ‘Copy Editor’ finishes his/her work, the manuscript will be sent to the ‘Layout editor’.

The ‘Layout Editor’ is responsible for structuring the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article, activating the necessary links and preparing the manuscript in the various formats, in our case PDF and HTML format. When the Layout Editor finishes his/her job, the manuscript will be sent to ‘Proof Editor’.

The Proof Editor confirms that the manuscript has gone through all the requisite stages and is suitable for publishing.

All the reviewers of a paper act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor may assign additional reviewers.

The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control of the reviews.  In respect of reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and of a high academic standard. When there is any doubt as to the objectivity of the reviews or the quality of the reviews, additional reviewers will be assigned.

The manuscript submission and the peer review process are broken down into the following steps:

 

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:

  • The originality of its contribution to the field of scholarly publishing, 
  • The soundness of its theory and methodology given the topic, 
  • The coherence of its analysis, 
  • Its ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).

Note: The review process for the submitted papers in this journal is that of double-blind peer review.

For more information please see: Publication Ethics and Journal Policies