Editorial Workflow

Pre-check

Following submission, the Managing Editor conducts a technical pre-check encompassing:

1. Manuscript alignment with journal‘s scope.
2. Adherence to high research standards and ethics.
3. Qualification for further scrutiny based on rigorous standards.
4. The academic editor (Editor-in-Chief or Associate editor for regular submissions and Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions) is informed and undertakes an editorial pre-check. During this phase, the academic editor evaluates manuscript suitability concerning journal’s scope and its scientific robustness, encompassing references’ relevance and applied methodology’s accuracy. Editors can choose to reject, request revisions prior to peer-review, or proceed with peer-review, suggesting suitable reviewers.

Peer-Review

Once a manuscript clears initial checks, it’s assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review. Single-blind review is employed, wherein reviewers are aware of authors’ identities. Reviewer comments remain confidential unless the reviewer consents to disclosure.

Editorial Decision and Revision:

All articles and reviews undergo peer-review, receiving at least two evaluations. The managing editor conveys the associate editor’s decision to corresponding author, which falls under these categories:

• Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is conditionally accepted pending minor revisions based on reviewer feedback. Authors are granted 15 days for revisions.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: Acceptance depends on substantial revisions. Authors must provide point-by-point responses or counterarguments if certain reviewer comments cannot be addressed. Generally, a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is allowed. Authors resubmit the revised version within a reasonable timeframe, subjected to further reviewer comments.
• Reject: Manuscripts with serious flaws or lacking significant original contributions are rejected without resubmission opportunity.

Authors must provide a comprehensive point-by-point response to all reviewer comments, even when disagreement arises.

Author Appeals

Authors have the option to appeal a manuscript rejection by communicating via email with the managing editor of the journal. The appeal should encompass an extensive rationale, including detailed responses addressing both reviewers’ and/or Editor’s remarks. Appeals are admissible solely following a “reject and decline resubmission” verdict and must be lodged within three months from the decision date. Failure to adhere to these criteria will lead to the dismissal of the appeal. The managing editor will transmit the manuscript along with pertinent information (including referee identities) to an assigned Editorial Board Member. The consulted Editor will proffer an advisory recommendation concerning the manuscript, proposing acceptance, further peer-review, or upholding the initial rejection. This pronouncement will then be ratified by the Editor-in-Chief. A rejection verdict at this juncture is conclusive and irrevocable.

Production and Publication

Upon acceptance, the manuscript will go through professional copy-editing, English editing, authors’ proofreading, final corrections, pagination, culminating in publication on the jouranl’s website.

Post-Publication:

The managing editor ensures that published articles are properly archived, indexed, and promoted. They also handle any post-publication inquiries or corrections that may arise.

Promoting Equity, Diversity and Inclusiveness:

Our Managing Editors actively encourage Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors to appoint diverse and proficient Editorial Boards. This ethos is also reflected in our inclusive and multinational work environment. We are devoted to providing equal prospects devoid of discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, religion, or socioeconomic status. Discrimination finds no place within our workplace and the editors are obligated to uphold these principles steadfastly.

Editorial Independence

Editorial Decisions:

Editorial decisions  are made independently. Articles are carefully reviewed by experts who are not connected to the article. Decisions are based on:

1. Choosing suitable reviewers.
2. Reviewer comments and author responses.
3. The overall quality of the research.

Editors’ Role as Authors:

Editors cannot perform review process of their own work. If an editor submits a paper, its review process with be handled by another editor who have no personal connection to the editor. This way, decisions are fair and unbiased.