All submissions to the Journal are initially reviewed by editor and section editors. At this stage manuscripts may be rejected without peer review, if they fail to meet submission requirements or are otherwise inappropriate. Some manuscripts may be returned to authors for revision and resubmission prior to peer review process.
Submissions, that are not rejected at the first stage, are sent for peer review by at least two appropriate, independent referees. A blinded peer review process is conducted, in which the reviewers’ names are routinely withheld from the author unless a reviewer requests a preference for his or her identity to be revealed.Selection of peer-reviewers is based upon the expertise of potential referees in the field to which the manuscript refers. Responsibility for choosing appropriate reviewers rests on an editor.
Authors, if they wish, may suggest potential referees to their work, however, whether or not to consider these reviewers is at the editor’s discretion. Authors should not suggest recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors who wish to suggest peer reviewers can do so by adding their salutation, name and surname, affiliation and email address to the title page under a caption ‘Suggested referees’.
Editors will make a decision on the manuscript relying on the reviewers’ evaluation reports and their own appraisal. These reports, along with the editorial decision will be sent to the authors.
Possible decisions are:–
Accept Submission– Revision Required, inviting the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns outlined by reviewers and editor before a final decision is reached.–
Decline Submission, typically on grounds of major conceptual flaws or gross technical and/or interpretational problems.
All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible and editorial decision is announced without undue delay.
Any manuscript submitted to the Journal is a confidential document and should remain so until it is formally published.
