Peer Review Process

Each submitted manuscript is assigned to one of the appointed editors, who is in charge of selecting reviewers, overseeing the review process, and recommending a final decision about the manuscript to the Journal Editorial Board. All papers are subject to single-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers. The most important criterion for acceptance/rejection is originality of the material presented in the manuscript. Reviewers are recruited among the internationally recognized experts relevant for the given area.

Before accepting or declining to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:

1), reviewers should report any breach of publishing ethics (data fabrication, authorship problems, plagiarism, duplicate submission, etc.);

2), reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest (anything that might affect their review, or if they feel they are unable to be objective);

3), the review process is strictly confidential (the journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewers and the authors of the paper are anonymous).

Reviewers are kindly asked to complete their review within 2 weeks after having received a manuscript.

If they are unable to complete their report in the agreed time-frame, it is advisable to inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that extensions can be provided and the reviewing process is not delayed. If rewievers are unable to do a review, it would be very helpful if they could recommend an alternative expert. In the event of conflicting Reviewer reports, the Editor will make the final decision.

Reviewers should do their best to clearly explain and argument their decision about the manuscript. In particular, if the decision is negative (rejection) the reviewer should clearly explain the arguments for such decision. For example, if the work is not original, the reviewer should provide a reference to the previous relevant work. If the reference list is inadequate, the reviewer should list the missing references. If a revision is requested, the reviewer should provide a list of required changes for authors to follow. When a revised manuscript is submitted the authors should clearly explain what actions/changes have been made regarding each of the reviewers' comments.