The submitted manuscripts are subject to a peer review process. The purpose of peer review is to assists the Editor-in-Chief, Subject Editors and Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving the paper. Scientific papers, review papers, short communications are subjected to the review process, and book reviews are reviewed by the Subject Editor of the field, or the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviews are anonymous (single-blind procedure), and at least two positive reviews should be obtained for a positive decision – acceptance of the paper after minor or major revision. In case MAJOR changes are demanded by reviewers, the revised version of the paper will be sent again to the reviewers for their FINAL OPINION. Reviewers are not paid for their reviews.
The choice of reviewers is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and Subject Editors. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area 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. Editors and the Editorial Staff shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors before, during and after the evaluation process.
All of 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.
During the review process Editors may require authors to provide additional information (including raw data) if they are necessary for the evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript. These materials shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or the quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.