In order to eliminate publication bias and ensure high quality
of published papers, all eligible manuscripts received will be
submitted to a double-blind peer review process. Manuscripts are
reviewed initially by the Editors, who acknowledge the receipt of
the manuscript and act as a first stage filter, within a week of
receipt. A fully anonymised version of those manuscripts which meet
the scientific and editorial standards, fit within the aims and scope of
and observe its general guidelines
is sent for outside formal review.
Each manuscript is reviewed by two referees who are
specialists in the field.
possesses its own reviewers’ database. However,
authors may suggest potential reviewers. Referees are
provided with assessment instructions and a manuscript
review form. The quality of reviewers’ reports is carefully
controlled by the Editors. Referees normally respond within
up to 4-6 weeks and an editorial decision as to whether to
accept the paper for publication, reject it, or ask the author
for a minor/major revision is made as soon as both referees'
reports are received. The Editor's decision is then sent to
the author together with recommendations made by the referees.
Authors may be asked to return their revised manuscript to the
referees, after which another revision might be asked. If a
consensus is not reached between the reviewers on the quality
of the submitted paper (accept/reject), a third opinion may be sought.
A proof of the final version of the paper will be sent to
the author for correction, and should be returned to
by the set deadline.
ISSN (Online) 2334-9050