Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.

If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

• Accept submission (Publish Unaltered)
• Revisions required (Consider after Minor Changes)
• Resubmit for review (Consider after Major Changes)
• Decline submission (Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following decisions: Publish Unaltered, Consider after Minor Changes, Consider after Major Changes, Reject. This decision is usually made within 30 days from the submission date.

If the Editor recommends “Publish Unaltered”; the manuscript is accepted for publication. The manuscript is then assigned a DOI number.

If the Editor recommends “Consider after 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. The revised manuscript has to be submitted within two weeks. 

If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes”, the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript within three months. Submission later than that will be regarded as a new submission that will go through the complete review process from the beginning. If you think you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the Editorial Office.

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or
incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript.

The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse himself/herself from the review process. The paper will be immediately sent to another qualified reviewer.

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editors.

Peer-reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap
between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer-review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.