Peer Review Process

Peer review policies

  • The journal uses a double-blind peer review for its articles.
  • The review process usually takes not more than 30–40 days when an article is accepted for review.
  • Authors may expect three possible answers: approval of the submission, approval with minor/major revision, or rejection of the submission.

Peer Review Process

The invitation. Before you accept or decline, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  • Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work, so ensure you can meet the deadline before committing.
  • Finally, explore the peer review process explained below.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can. A delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review it or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Before you start. If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you cannot share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
First, read the article and then take a break, giving yourself time to think. Consider the article from your perspective. When you sit down to write the review, make sure you know what the journal is looking for and have a copy of any specific reviewing criteria you need to consider.

Your review report. For detailed guidance on writing a review, see the recommendations below. Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive and should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name.
It is important to provide insight into any deficiencies. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors can fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your opinion or are reflected by the data.

Checklist
Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor that you have read and understood the research.

  • Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting and whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
  • Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to the journal’s standards?
  • If you suspect plagiarism or fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise them with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. For more information about plagiarism, see the “Publication Ethics” statement.
  • Provide specific comments and suggestions, including those concerning layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, method, results, conclusion/discussion, language, and references.

Your recommendation. When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:

  • Reject (explain reason in report);
  • Accept without revision;
  • Revise – either major or minor revisions (explain the required revision, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article).

The final decision. The Editor-in-Chief ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The Editor-in-Chief will weigh all views and may ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.