Peer review process
Peer review process
Articles that are published by our journal are double-blind, peer-reviewed by at least two experts. In this review process, the listing of the name(s) of the author(s), acknowledgements and references to author contributions must be removed from the manuscript and posted into the Title page file. The average time from submission to first decision will be one month and from acceptance to publishing will be two weeks. Steps in the process are as follows:
Submitting the manuscript
After the manuscript has been successfully submitted, the editorial office will check the paper’s formatting and citation styles, and adherence to the specified author guidelines. If the required conditions are not met, the manuscript will be returned to the author for reformatting and resubmission. If the manuscript passes approval, it will be screened by the editor-in-chief to determine whether the submitted paper is in line with the journal’s aims and scope. It will also be assessed to confirm that it is sufficiently original and/or novel, and has not been plagiarized. If it does not meet this criteria, the editor-in-chief may decline the submission of the paper without sending it for further review.
Assignment of academic editor and reviewers
The Editor in Chief will then send invitations to academic editors in order to begin the process of assigning the research work to an appropriate editor. The assigned editor will then oversee the manuscript’s acceptance or rejection. The academic editor will then select at least two potential reviewers for assessment of the research work. The invited reviewers are expected to be affiliated with differing institutions from those of the corresponding authors. Moreover, reviewers will consider the invitation according to their own scientific expertise, any potential conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria. Our journal is committed to assigning the reviewers within one week of the paper’s is submission.
The reviewers are usually given two weeks to review the research work. The reviewer will then submit the review results to the journal, with a recommendation to accept the work with major or minor revisions to the manuscript.
Academic editor’s evaluation of the reviews
The academic editor will evaluate reviewers’ comments to make an overall decision. If the comments/responses of the reviewers differ significantly, the academic editor may invite an additional individual to review the manuscript before making the final decision.
The academic editor will send a decision (with acceptance or the need for major or minor revisions) to the author via the online system, along with any relevant comments submitted by the reviewers. As our journal adopts the double-blind, peer-review principle, all comments and suggestions remain anonymous.
Once the authors have received the review results, comments, and suggestions, they will proceed accordingly. Re-submitted material must include the revised manuscript with highlighted changes and a rebuttal letter. The author is usually given two weeks (for minor revisions) and four weeks (for major revisions) to revise the manuscript. In the event of major revisions, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the same reviewers before a final decision is made. For minor revisions, the subsequent review process may not be necessary.