Peer Review Policy

We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers in our Scientific journal. To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure that the published research is accurate, trustworthy and meets the highest standards of research within a given field. We adhere broadly to the “COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers”, which sets out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process.

Characteristics of the peer review process are as follows:

• The Editor-in-Chief first evaluates all manuscripts. The exceptional manuscripts are accepted at this stage itself. Those rejected at this stage have serious flaws, have poor grammar or English language or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage are normally informed within 2 weeks of receipt.
• Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria and scope of the Journal and are prepared according to the Author Guidelines are sent to peer-review. Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
• Ethical issues are taken care of by the editorial team before sending the manuscript to the panel of reviewers.
• Reviewers are selected for a manuscript according to their expertise.
• Submissions usually will be refereed by 2 experts as suggested by the editorial board.
• Our journal favours double blinded peer-review process which means that both reviewer and author remain unknown to each other. It is our belief that this model ensures objectivity during the process.
• All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two peer-reviewers. Each author may suggest up to four reviewers and also point out reviewers that he/she wishes to avoid.
• Editors are not obliged to follow author’s suggestions and final choice of reviewers is made according to the manuscript´s subject.
• Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when Editors decide further review is required.
• The manuscript may be reviewed additionally by a statistical reviewer if needed.
• Simultaneous submissions of the same manuscript to different journals will not be tolerated.
• All publication decisions are made by the journal's Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the referees' reports. Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
• All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. We expect our Board of Reviewing Editors and Reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential material as well.
• Editors and Reviewers involved in the review process should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and remove oneself from cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.
• Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must not be used for competitive gain.
• Our peer review process is confidential and identities of reviewers cannot be revealed.
• All manuscripts submitted will be checked for plagiarism (copying text or results from other sources) and self-plagiarism (duplicating substantial parts of authors' own published work without giving the appropriate references). Plagiarism is not tolerated.
• Reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript is original, methodologically sound, follows appropriate ethical guidelines, has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions, correctly references previous relevant work etc. Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not a part of the peer review process.
• The manuscript is to be reviewed within 30 days. All our Reviewers also sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts received from the authors are usually returned to the initial Reviewers. Reviewers if required, may ask for more than one revision of a manuscript.
• A reviewer should inform the editor if the assigned manuscript contains substantial similarity to the any published paper.
• The Editor(s) may return to reviewers for further information. Reviewers may be asked to provide follow-up advice. In addition, reviewers may be asked to review subsequent revisions of a manuscript. Resubmitted manuscripts are carefully reviewed to ensure that the manuscript demonstrates a serious attempt to address the criticisms raised in the previous review. New peer reviewers may be engaged at this time at the discretion of the Editors.
• Peer reviewers who are slow or careless in their reports, or who do not provide reasoned views are generally not invited to review again.