Peer Review Process:
Articles are peer-reviewed through a double-blind system.
Authors are required to blind any information related to their identity or the identity of their institutions. In the same way, the identities of the reviewers are blinded to the authors.
To find the submission, the reviewer should log in to the Editorial Manager as "Reviewer" and should select “Pending Assignments” where the reviewer can find a PDF copy of the submission.
When the review report is ready, the reviewer should log in again to the Editorial Manager as "Reviewer" and should select “Submit Recommendation”.
Every manuscript will be peer-reviewed by a minimum of two expert reviewers; the opinion of a third reviewer may be needed. The Editor-in-Chief makes a decision, which may be either accept/ revise (minor or major)/ or reject the manuscript, based on the reviewers' comments.
Required revisions must be completed and submitted within 2-6 weeks according to the required revision whether minor or major. Revised manuscripts returned after this time will be handled as new submissions.
When submitting a revised version of a manuscript, authors are requested to submit a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments in a separate Word file. The authors should copy each comment into the response letter and then explain in detail how the point was addressed in the revised manuscript and indicate where exactly the change(s) is made. To make it easy for the editor and the reviewers to track the changes, the changes in the manuscript must be made visible preferably by making the changes in a red color font.
The decision on the revised manuscript will be sent to the authors within 2-4 weeks according to the required revision whether minor or major. Another revision may be required.
After the revisions are completed, the editor will forward the manuscript to the publisher.
The proof will be sent to the authors for corrections and final approval. Major changes by addition or deletion are not allowed; corrections at this stage are very limited.
The authors can track the status of the submission through the EM system.
Reviewers focus should be on the originality of the topic, the scientific significance, and the quality of the submission.
