Peer Review Process

View our Peer-Review process                                                                                 

Peer-Review Procedure

  1. Manuscript submitted via the journal online submission system, then a manuscript No. is assigned.

  2. Primary manuscript check by the editorial assistant against the submission Checklist, to check if components of manuscript are complete and conforming to the submission requirements, whether there is issue of duplicate submission, plagiarism, and other concerns. If manuscript does not meet the submission requirements, the manuscript will be returned to the authors for corrections and resubmission, or even rejected for ethical violation concerns.

  3. When the submitted manuscript is complete, it will be reviewed first by the Editor-in-Chief for novelty, scientific importance, and relevance to the journal's general readership.

  4. If the manuscript is found lacking sufficient quality or the topic is not well within the journal scope, or is very poorly written, lack of suitable English language correctness and readability, without sufficient research creative novelty, or any other serious ethical issues, the manuscript will be rejected outright promptly without further consideration and review (a desk reject).

  5. Manuscript that passes the initial screening will be sent to and reviewed by peer reviewers.

  6. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two external expert reviewers who will provide unbiased, critical and independent assessment of the submission; Reviewers are asked to complete the review within the assigned time (usually 2 weeks). The peer reviewers' comments will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief, who will decide whether to accept with/without revision, or reject the submission. The corresponding/submitting author is notified of the editorial decision.

  7. Manuscripts which are returned to the authors for minor or major revisions should be resubmitted within assigned deadline. If necessary, the revised manuscripts are reassessed by the same reviewers to determine if the authors have satisfactorily addressed their criticisms and comments. Depending upon the re-evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision.

  8. The above review process may be repeated (one or more times) if a manuscript revision (major or minor) is requested.

  9. The peer-review process is single blinded with the reviewers aware of whom the authors of the manuscript are, the authors do not know who the reviewers are.

  10. All manuscripts are treated by the editorial staff, editors and assigned reviewers as privileged and confidential information. Reviewers' comments are not published. The reviewers' identity remains anonymous. The manuscripts under review are not revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff.


Publication Frequency

Monthly in print and online, some articles may be published online first ahead of print.

Reviewing Potential Conflicts of Interest

Members of the editorial team and external peer reviewers assessing manuscripts must perform a COI self-assessment. Financial gain and collaborations among authors are common examples of COI, which may be challenging to avoid in highly specialized fields.

When reviewing articles, editors and reviewers must answer the following questions in a COI statement:

    1. Is there a financial gain? (Yes or No)

    2. Is there an existing relationship? (Yes or No)

    3. Are there shared institutional affiliations? (Yes or No)

    4. Is there a personal or family relationship that may result in a conflict? (Yes or No)

If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes," the editor or reviewer should recuse themselves, and the article will be reassigned to a different editor or reviewer.

Submissions from Members of the Editorial Board

To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the editorial board are allowed to submit articles for publication in the journal. However, the managing editor for the submission will be selected from a different institution to minimize the risk of COI. The submitting editor will not participate in any editorial discussions, peer review process, or manuscript decisions. The article will be treated like any other submission to the journal. Similarly, article submissions from the editor-in-chief will be handled by a member of the editorial board from a different institution. This member will oversee the editorial process and peer review, while the editor-in-chief will not participate in any editorial activities. The final decision regarding the manuscript will be made by the managing editor. To determine the best editorial team members and peer reviewers for each manuscript, the COI self-assessment mentioned above will be utilized.