The first stage of initial check is carried out by the managing editor to assess：
★ the suitability of the manuscript to the scope of the journal;
★ the format of the manuscript;
★ the similarity between the manuscript and existing literature by iThenticate.
Unqualified manuscripts will be rejected at this stage.
Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an Academic Editor (The Academic Editor is usually the Editor-in-Chief, and sometimes the Editor-in-Chief assigns another Editorial Board member or a Guest Editor as the Academic Editor for certain submissions.) who has no conflicts of interest with any authors of the manuscript. The Academic Editor evaluates the manuscript regarding its novelty, scientific soundness, ethical issues, etc. If the Academic Editor finds that the manuscript may not be of sufficient quality to go through the normal peer review process, or that the subject of the manuscript may not be appropriate for the journal’s scope, the manuscript will be rejected with no further processing. The qualified manuscript is passed on to experts for peer review.
The journal adopts a single-blind peer review model. All manuscripts accepted by the journal have undergone a rigorous and thorough review (except for some Editorials released by the Editors). Single-blind peer review means that reviewers know the identities of authors, but the identities of reviewers are hidden from authors.
After initial check, the editorial office invites experts in the relevant field to review the manuscript. See how these reviewers are selected at Peer Review Policy.
Generally, the reviewer is required to complete review work within 14 days after accepting the review invitations. The reviewer will assess the scientific validity, novelty and significance, etc., of the manuscript, and write a review report which consists of their specific comments and an overall recommendation (“Acceptance”, “Minor Revision”, “Major Revision” or “Rejection”).
At least two review reports are collected and then sent to the Academic Editor for consideration.
A detailed guidelines for reviewers are available at Peer Review Guidelines.
After all review reports are collected, the Academic Editor makes one of the following editorial recommendations based on the manuscript and these comments:
★ Acceptance: The manuscript will be published after production process.
★ Minor Revision: The author will be informed to make some revisions based on the comments of reviewers and the Academic Editor. After the author submits the revised version, the Academic Editor will fully consider the revised version and make a decision on acceptance, further revision or rejection.
★ Major Revision: The author will be informed to make major revisions according to the given comments, and submit a revised version within the required time. In certain cases, the revised version will be sent for a second round of peer review. After fully consideration of the reviewers’ comments and the revised version, the Academic Editor makes a decision: Acceptance, Further Revision or Rejection.
★ Rejection: The manuscript will be rejected immediately.
Each accepted manuscript is subject to production, including language editing, copy editing, format conversion, etc.
If authors feel that they have a strong scientific case for reconsideration (in case reviewers have missed the point of the paper, for example), they can appeal the decision by contacting the editorial office.