Peer review

The peer review process provides independent and qualified verification of the submitted study, with the added bonus of possible improvements towards manuscript quality. The purpose of peer review is to assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the authors it may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Each submitted manuscript is assigned two independent referees based on the principle of double-blind peer review. The identity of the reviewers remains unknown to the authors before, during, and after the review. The identity of the authors remains unknown to the reviewers until publishing. Therefore, it is necessary that authors remove from the submitted manuscript text all names and other references to themselves.

The selection of reviewers is at the editors’ discretion. The reviewers must be competent on the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors’ own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.

Reviewers use an open form. They are expected to give general and specific comments on the quality of research and suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript. The review is submitted online into the field for communicating with authors and editors, and additionally into a separate field for confidential communication with the editor only. Reviewers can also insert their observation and suggestions into the manuscript text itself, but taking precautions not to reveal their identity (e.g. remove name from the comments settings).

Manuscript is accepted for publication after it receives two positive reviews. Manuscript is rejected for publication after it receives two negative reviews. Reasons for rejection may include, but are not limited to, the following: out of journal scope, very poor English, low quality of research (e.g. inadequate methodology, incorrect statistics, etc.), or ethical issues. Editor-in-chief reaches the final decision on the acceptance of each manuscript in any phase before publishing.

Throughout the peer review process, all of the referees act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the editor assigns additional reviewers.

The editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.

Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the editor without delay.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript should notify the Editor without delay.

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

The peer review process usually takes 4 to 8 weeks. The reviewers are assigned on a voluntary basis.