The research article submitted to this online journal will be peer-reviewed at least 2 (two) reviewers using the double-blind review process. The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 8 steps, although these steps can vary slightly for each articles.

1. Submission of manuscript

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via open journal system.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point. The Editor-in-Chief checks assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality and merits. The EiC may reject the paper at this stage.

3. Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers.

4. Response to Invitation

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation to review. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

5. Review is Conducted

The reviewer schedules time to read the paper multiple times. The first read provides an initial impression of the work. If major issues are discovered at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further investigation. Otherwise, they will read the paper several times more, taking notes in order to construct a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal with the recommendation of the reviewer.

6. Editor Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may re-run review process.

7. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments in anonymous.

8. Further Steps

If the paper is accepted, it is sent to production. If the article is rejected or returned for major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive reviewer comments to assist the author in improving the article. At this point, reviewers should be notified via email or letter of the outcome of their review. If the paper was returned for revision, the reviewers should expect a new version, unless they opted out of further participation. However, if only minor changes were requested, the handling editor may perform this follow-up review.