Peer Review Process

This publication employs a double-blind review procedure to ensure impartiality and uphold high academic standards. Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) evaluates each manuscript for its alignment with the journal's objectives. If deemed appropriate, the manuscript undergoes a structured review process involving multiple stages:

Initial Assessment (5 working days): The EIC, possibly with the support of a Deputy Editor, assesses whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's objectives and determines if it requires a comprehensive review. If not, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) with reasons for rejection.

Reviewer Assignment (2 working days): If the manuscript merits a full review, the EIC assigns it to two External Reviewers with relevant expertise. The EIC monitors the review stages.

Review Process (28 working days): The External Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's academic and methodological quality, providing recommendations:

Accept the manuscript, possibly requesting minor corrections.
Accept it subject to some revisions.
Reject it.

Decision Making (7 working days): The EIC reviews all evaluations and makes a final decision, considering the recommendations and their own assessment.

Author Notification (3 working days): The EIC informs the author(s) of the decision and any required revisions.

Rating Scale

To quantify evaluations, the following rating scale is employed:

76% - 100%: Accept the manuscript (possible request for minor corrections)
51% - 75%: Accept subject to some revisions
0% - 50%: Reject the manuscript

Double-Blind Evaluation

To maintain the integrity of the review process, this journal utilizes a double-anonymized review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other's identities. Authors are required to submit the following separate documents to facilitate this process:

1. Title Page (with author information): This should include the manuscript's title, author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, any declarations of interest, and the corresponding author's email address. Authors may also provide a Twitter handle, either personal or institutional, if desired.

2. Anonymized Manuscript (without author information): The main document should exclude any identifying information, such as author names or affiliations. This includes the main text, references, figures, tables, and acknowledgments.

Manuscript Preparation Guidelines

Authors are advised to adhere to the following guidelines when preparing their manuscripts to ensure a smooth review and publication process:

File Format: Save the manuscript in the native format of the word processor used (e.g., Microsoft Word).
Text Formatting: Use a single-column layout and avoid any formatting that could distract from the content. During the publication process, much of the formatting will be standardized. Refrain from using justification or automatic hyphenation features. However, boldface, italics, subscripts, and superscripts can be used where appropriate.
Tables: For tabulated data, use a single grid for the table rather than individual grids for each row. If tables do not contain grids, align columns using tabs instead of spaces.
Visual Elements: Ensure that the on-screen layout of the text closely resembles the intended appearance in the published version. Source files for any figures, tables, or supplementary materials should be provided to facilitate accurate placement during typesetting.
Language and Grammar: Utilize the spelling and grammar check tools available in your word processing software to minimize errors and enhance readability.

By following these guidelines and understanding the review process, authors contribute to an efficient review process and uphold the quality standards of the Journal.