The journal adopts a single-blind peer review model. Under this model, author identities are known to reviewers, but reviewer identities are kept confidential. Authors are therefore encouraged to avoid explicit disclosure of their identities in their manuscripts. The Academic Editor may decide that a direct discussion between the author and the reviewer would be helpful in some cases. But the author and the reviewer shall not disclose their names to each other without explicit permission from both parties.
After submission, manuscripts are subject to initial check by the managing editor and Academic Editor. Unqualified manuscripts will be rejected immediately without further peer review; and qualified manuscripts will be sent for peer review. More information about initial check can be found at Editorial Process.
Suitable reviewers are selected based on the following.
★ They are independent of all the authors and their institutions.
★ They focus on the same or similar research with the manuscript, and they are able to impartially assess the manuscript based on originality, validity, and significance.
★ They have current publications in the same research areas with the manuscript.
★ They are able to complete peer review within the requested time.
Reviewers are suggested to complete the review by providing a constructive review report within 14 days after they accept the review invitation. Each manuscript will have two review reports collected for Academic Editor’s decision.
In some cases below more review reports may be collected.
★ When the two previous reports indicate opposite opinions.
★ When the Academic Editor thinks more reports are necessary for his/her decision.
Authors may suggest reviewers who they believe are especially suited to review their works. This is particularly welcome when the review work requires highly specialized expertise. However, the managing editors have the discretion to invite these suggested reviewers or not. Authors need to provide a reviewers’ list including their names, e-mail addresses, research areas, institutions, and ORCID if any. The suggested reviewers
★ should have a recent publication record in the area of the submitted paper;
★ should not have a recent publication or current submission with any author;
★ should not share or recently haven’t shared an affiliation with any author;
★ should not collaborate or recently haven’t collaborated with any author;
★ should not have a close personal connection to any author;
★ should not have a financial interest with the work.
The managing editor is responsible for the first stage of initial check (including suitability of the scope, format integrity, and plagiarism check through iThenticate), seeking suitable reviewers, and coordinating the communication among authors, reviewers, and the Academic Editor.
The Academic Editor is to assess whether a manuscript is qualified for peer review, and make a final decision to accept or reject the manuscript according to the review reports. The Academic Editor takes charge of the whole review process and decides the academic value of a manuscript.
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 papers.
The name of Academic Editor will be listed together with the paper once it is published.
The journal encourages reviewers to register in Publons and add their review records there. Review records will be verified by the editorial office.