Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Manuscripts are sent for review only if they pass the initial evaluation regarding their form, quality, and thematic scope. The initial evaluation is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor and normally takes no longer than one week.
Under normal circumstances, the peer review process takes up to 4-8 weeks per round, with a maximum of six weeks if additional time is required. Authors are generally expected to complete revisions within three months (six months if substantial new experiments are required). The total period from submission to publication varies depending on revisions, but the journal strives to reach a first decision within 4–6 weeks.
Manuscripts are sent for review only if they pass the initial evaluation regarding their form and thematic scope. Special care is taken that the initial evaluation does not last more than necessary.
Reviewing Procedure
Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:
- Originality and contribution to the field (checked using plagiarism detection software, with manual assessment of overlap)
- Soundness of theory and methodology
- Coherence and quality of analysis
- Clarity of presentation (language, style, structure)
All manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts, and in most cases three reviewers are invited.
Steps in the process:
- Author submits a manuscript via the online system.
- The Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Section Editor) conducts an initial evaluation. Manuscripts outside scope or failing formal requirements are rejected without external review.
- Suitable manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two qualified reviewers who are independent, from different institutions than the authors, and without recent collaborations.
- Reviewers assess the manuscript and return structured reports within four weeks.
- The Editor makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Accept after minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
- Reject
If revisions are requested, authors must submit a point-by-point response along with a revised manuscript. Where possible, revised versions are returned to the original reviewers. Multiple rounds of review may occur until a final decision is reached.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers are expected to:
- Accept review requests only if they have the necessary expertise and can complete the review within the deadline.
- Respect confidentiality of the review process and not use information gained for personal or professional advantage.
- Declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal). If none exist, confirm explicitly.
- Provide objective, constructive feedback and avoid personal criticism.
- Evaluate originality, methodology, clarity, ethical standards, and significance to the field.
- Follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers normally have four weeks to complete a review. Extensions may be granted if requested in advance.
Editorial Quality Control
- All reviews are assessed by the handling editor to ensure objectivity, relevance, and quality.
- If an author disputes a review, the editorial office may request an additional independent review to resolve concerns.
- In cases of suspected misconduct, the journal follows COPE Core Practices.
Post-Review Processing
- Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading.
- Authors review proofs before final publication.
- Each published article includes a clear statement of its peer review history (double-blind, number of reviewers, decision date).
