All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo thorough peer review (independent of paper types). The peer review process is organised in such a way that all submitted papers undergo initial editorial office checks and scope and relevance checks by Section Editors or Editors in Chief (depending on the scope/nature of content) after which they are forwarded to Editorial Board Members for review coordination. They will collect at least two review reports per manuscript, request author revisions (peer-review again whenever necessary), before making the final decision on publication.
A more detailed description of the process is available below:
Manuscripts are submitted and handled via ReView system hosted by River Valley Technology (for the time being this will be done through email).
Once a manuscript is submitted it undergoes editorial checks at our internal editorial office to ensure it fits the scope and fulfils the criteria for submission including relevant metadata, author affiliations and reference lists. Articles that pass the initial assessment stage, and are within scope of the journal, are analysed for plagiarism using iThenticate. Reports are sent to Section Editors and respective Editorial Board members handling the submission to use in their assessment of the manuscript.
Manuscripts are then handled by the relevant Section Editor or Editor in Chief (depending on the scope/nature of content) who determine if the paper is in scope and suitable for peer review.
If a paper passes this stage, an Editorial Board member is assigned to handle the peer review process and make the final editorial decision. The Editorial Board member can decide to return the papers to authors before formal peer review or can assign independent external peer reviewers.
Each paper aims to have a minimum of two review reports gathered. The Editorial Board Member reviews the reports received and makes the final editorial decision. After peer review the decisions that can be reached are:
If the board member recommends rejection, the paper returns to the authors with the reviewers’ comments and the paper is no longer be considered by the journal.
A paper that receives a revise decision also receives the reviewers reports often with Editorial recommendations on how to improve the work so it can be reconsidered at the journal.
Authors are encouraged to address the peer reviewers concerns and resubmit.
If the Editor recommends an accepted decision, the paper moves forward to publication, with the authors receiving details on how to format their final manuscript, including relevant policy guidelines. All authors of the paper are notified of acceptance.
Section Editors and the Editor in Chief may also be called upon for appeals or other issues requiring additional editorial input and guidance.