Peer Review Process
Peer review is an important part of the publishing process. It’s a way of ensuring only articles of the highest quality, which describe sound research methods and results, are published.The process involves both the journal editors and independent expert reviewers. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal. However, the ultimate authority to make the final decision rests solely with journal editors or the journal’s editorial board.
A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below:
|Peer Review Process|
|Author submits manuscript for consideration|
performs technical checks
|Author submits revised manuscript||→||Manuscript assessed by editor:
screen for policy requirements,
ethics, and disclosures; makes an
initial assessment to determine
whether to send for peer review
|Revisions required||Sent to reviewers:
peer reviewers read and provide
comments on the manuscript
|←||Further review needed?|
|Reviews assessed by editor:
the editor makes the final decision,
taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations
the editor notifies the author
that their paper has been accepted
All articles in this journal undergo peer review. To submit a completed manuscript you need to register, log in, go to your account, and upload the manuscript.
The author submits a manuscript and it receives a tracking number. The editorial office perform an initial quality check on the manuscript to ensure that the paper is formatted correctly. Once the paper has been assessed by the Chief Editor, it undergoes peer review. Peer reviewing is “double blind”.
The following criteria are always considered for each submission in the peer-review process:
- ethical aspects;
- originality of the work;
- importance of the information;
- clarity and comprehensibility of the text;
- appropriateness of the methods;
- interpretation of the results;
- reasonability of the conclusions.
Peer review typically takes 4 week, but there are a lot of variables to take into account. These include the journal’s internal processes, availability of peer reviewers, and other things out of your control. Stages of the submission process include:
- Processing the initial manuscript - 1 week;
- Selecting peer reviewers - 1 week;
- Sending the paper out for review and waiting for comments - 4 week;
- Rendering an editorial decision - 1 week.
However, because of delays or rejections in review acceptance process or other various reasons, the process can last longer than anticipated.
Author's response letter accompanying the revised version of the manuscript. The authors should state clearly and precisely every step taken in accordance with the reviewers' requests. The description should be listed on a numbered basis, in the order of reviewers' comments. Altered paragraphs in the new version of the manuscript should be specified using page and paragraph numbers or alternatively marked in yellow color.
The review process in journal is confidential (double-blind) – the author and the reviewer are anonymous to each other. Submitted manuscripts are accepted for publication after a positive opinion of the independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to assess reliably the submitted papers in written form using unified Review Forms (or PDF) / (or html) and include definite conclusion on whether article should be published. There are possible types of decision:
• Accept without revision;
• Accept after minor revision;
• Reconsider after major revision;
• Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology.
If reviewers appear to differ in their opinion, the Editor-in-Chief:
(a) may choose to share all reviews with each of the reviewers,
(b) ask other reviewers to assess the manuscript,
(c) consider all comments and balance the final decision. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editors with as much information as possible.
A review that clearly outlines reasons both for and against publication is therefore of as much or even more value as one that makes a direct recommendation. When a manuscript has been revised in response to comments of reviewers or when authors feel their argument has been misconstrued in review, reviewers are asked for additional comments on the revised or contested manuscript. However, this could be find as an attempt to put pressure on the reviewer, so the editor carefully judge the relevance of contact. In the case of rejection, the authors have the right to appeal if they think that the reviewers did not understand or appreciate some points in the manuscript. The editors will then decide if there are grounds for reconsideration of the manuscript.
When the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Chief Editor will schedule the publication and inform the authors of the particular number and volume of the Journal in which the article will be published.