Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
To ensure the articles we review are balanced and accurate, we asked several experts to review them carefully. Manuscripts will be reviewed by two independent (more if necessary) and anonymous assessors, selected by the Editor-in-Chief whom the Editorial Board might help. Reviews will provide a fair overview of the topic without taking sides and include fair discussion. This means we must consider all points of view. In articles containing Perspectives, we want writers to state their opinions clearly and separate commonly accepted views from personal points of view. The assessors' suggestions were sent to the authors by the Editorial Team responsible. Editor-in-Chief who is responsible for the objectivity of the assessment and the results of the review. The editor will provide the reviewer's report to the author and provide instructions on the next steps if necessary. If asked to revise an article, the author must respond formally. If the editor believes the article has been appropriately revised, it will be accepted. Reports from reviewers will be submitted anonymously to the author.
Reviewers have the following responsibilities:
- Maintain the confidentiality of the author and the manuscript being reviewed
- Reviewers must report to the Editor-in-Chief if they become aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism
- Review must be carried out objectively, and observations must be formulated clearly with supporting arguments
- Reviewers who feel they are not qualified to provide a proper scientific review within the allotted time should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
- Reviewers do not review articles that involve personal conflicts of interest.
There are four types of editorial decisions after the peer review process is carried out, namely:
- Decline submission. After reviewing the peer review process, the article is deemed unfit for publication and cannot be resubmitted even if the author makes revisions.
- Resubmit for Review. The initial version of the article could have been more acceptable and needed much work, but there is good potential in it. Authors have the opportunity to resubmit their corrected articles. However, before it can be published, the editor must ensure that the article complies with established standards. The same editor will review resubmitted manuscripts as before.
- Revisions. The manuscript requires revision before a final decision can be made. Authors are asked to revise their manuscripts based on comments received from reviewers and editors, and the time for resubmitting the revised results will be communicated at the time of revision. A point-by-point explanation of how comments have been addressed should be included in the revised version of the manuscript. Revisions can go through reviewers, and papers can undergo multiple revisions. If authors do not revise their paper as notified by the editors, the paper can still be rejected for publication.
- Accept submission. The paper is accepted for publication with conditions that need to be considered when producing the final version of the manuscript. After a final check at the editorial office, acceptance is confirmed, and the paper is forwarded to the publisher for publication.
The following is a chart regarding the peer review process carried out:
