Peer Review Process

When received by the editorial office, each submission is checked for suitability. It may be rejected without review if it is outside the journal's scope, obviously of insufficient quality, or missing important sections. 

The journal follows a conventional single-blind peer review process, where the reviewers' identities are kept confidential from the submitting authors. Authors must submit their papers honestly, avoiding fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or inappropriate data manipulation.

Submitted manuscripts are assessed by anonymous referees based on their contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. At least two reviewers, who may be members of the Editorial Board or other qualified individuals in the field, typically review each paper.

The Editors may triage submissions and make decisions without external review to expedite the review process and provide timely feedback to authors. Authors can expect to receive the review results within approximately eight weeks.

When a decision for minor or major revision is issued, if authors do not satisfactorily revise their articles after receiving reviewer feedback, the Editor-in-Chief retains the right to reject the submission. Revised articles may be sent out for further review or evaluated directly by the Editor-in-Chief, depending on the extent of the requested revisions.

The time required for review and decision-making can vary significantly, as it can be challenging to find appropriate reviewers, and delays in receiving their reports may occur. The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial office strive to minimize the time from submission to the first decision. The journal aims to provide a first decision (post-review) within 40–60 days, although this timeline cannot be guaranteed.

It is important to note that articles that do not present original research, such as letters to the editor or editorials, are not subjected to external review; instead, the Editor-in-Chief decides to publish these types of articles.