Workflow

The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Review comments for author & editor and for editor only can be added separately.

To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted before the deadline. Reviewers should contact the editorial office if they are unable to meet the deadline.

Reviewers may focus on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. Reviewers provide a recommendation of Accept/Minor Changes/Major Changes/Reject. However, the final decision will be made by the editor.

Peer Review Process

The peer-review process is single blinded; that is, the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are.

The entire editorial workflow is performed online by logging into the system. Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the Editor in Chief to ensure that it is suitable to go through the peer review process. Once this is done, the manuscript is sent to an appropriate Editor based on the subject of the manuscript. All manuscripts shall be handled by an Associate Editor who does not have any potential conflict of interest with any of the authors.

If the Associate Editor finds that the manuscript may not be of sufficient quality to go through the normal peer review process, or that the subject of the manuscript may not be appropriate for the journal's scope, the manuscript shall be rejected with no further processing.

If the Associate Editor finds that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, the Associate Editor should assign the manuscript to at least 3 external reviewers, who have no conflict of interests with the manuscript's authors. The reviewers will then submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

  1. Accept
  2. Minor Changes
  3. Major Changes
  4. Reject

When at least 3 reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations as shown above.

If the Editor recommends "Accept", the manuscript will undergo a final check by the journal's editorial office in order to ensure that the manuscript and its review process adhere to the journal's guidelines and policies. Once this is done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript’s acceptance.

If the Editor recommends "Minor Changes", the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.

If the Editor recommends "Major Changes", the authors are expected to revise their manuscript in accordance with that recommendation and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the original reviewers are asked to review it. Along with their review reports on the revised manuscript, the reviewers make a recommendation again.

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.