Our rigorous editorial process ensures the highest quality of published research through systematic evaluation and peer review.
The corresponding author can submit the article by mail. All submissions must include:
To ensure that it contains the necessary sections and stylisations, the journal compares the paper's structure and composition to its Author Guidelines. At this stage, the paper's quality is not evaluated.
The EIC verifies that the manuscript is sufficiently unique and captivating, and that it is suitable for the journal. Otherwise, the article can be dismissed without further evaluation.:
Peer review is handled by associate editors in certain journals. They would be assigned at this point if they did.
Those the handling editor thinks might be suitable reviewers are invited by invitation. Additional invitations are sent out as answers come in, if needed, until the desired number of acceptances is reached; typically, this is two, however journals vary somewhat in this regard.
Probable reviewers evaluate the invitation against their availability, conflicts of interest, and areas of expertise. After that, they either agree or disagree. When declining, they may also recommend additional reviewers if at all possible.:
The reviewer schedules multiple readings of the article. An initial impression of the work is formed on the first reading. The reviewer may feel free to reject the article without doing any additional work if significant issues are discovered at this point. If not, they will read the document multiple times and take notes in order to create a thorough, point-by-point evaluation. A recommendation to approve or reject the review is then sent to the journal, or else a request for revision (often marked as major or minor) is made before the review is given another chance.
Before reaching a final conclusion, the handling editor takes into account every review that has been returned. Before making a choice, the editor could ask another reviewer whether there are significant differences between the reviews.:
The author receives a decision email from the editor along with any pertinent reviewer feedback. The journal's peer review process will determine whether or not the comments are anonymous.:
The document is forwarded to production if it is accepted. The handling editor should incorporate the reviewers' helpful criticism to assist the author in improving the article whether it is rejected or returned for major or minor revisions. At this stage, reviewers ought to receive a letter or email informing them of the review's conclusion. Unless they have chosen not to participate further, reviewers should anticipate receiving a revised version of the work if it was returned for revision. However, the handling editor may conduct this follow-up review in cases when only minor modifications were required.