Peer Review Process

Peer review policies

  • The journal uses a double-blind peer review for its articles.
  • The review process typically takes no longer than 30 days once the manuscript is accepted for review.
  • Authors can expect three possible responses: approval of the submission, approval with minor or major revisions, or rejection.

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 believe you can provide a high-quality review.
  • Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? If you have any conflicts of interest, please notify the editorial board before accepting the invitation.
  • Do you have time? Reviewing can be quite demanding, so make sure you can meet the deadline before committing.
  • Finally, consider the peer review process outlined 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, please provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Before you start. If you accept the manuscript for review, you must treat it as a confidential document. This means you cannot share it with anyone without prior authorization from the Editor-in-Chief.

First, read the manuscript, then take a break to think. Consider the article from your perspective. When you sit down to write the review, make sure you understand what the journal is looking for and have a copy of any specific review 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-in-Chief 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.

It is essential to highlight any deficiencies. Clearly explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors can fully understand your reasoning. Indicate whether your comments are based on your opinion or supported by the data.

Checklist
Summarize the manuscript in a short paragraph:

  • Share your main impressions of the manuscript, including whether it is original, engaging, impactful, and whether it contributes to contemporary scholarly research.
  • Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards?
  • Do you suspect any form of plagiarism?
  • Provide comments and suggestions concerning title, abstract, structure, method, results, conclusions, language, and references.

Your recommendation. When providing a recommendation, consider categories such as:

  • Reject (explain reason in report);
  • Accept without revision;
  • Revise – either major or minor revisions (explain the required revision, and indicate 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.