Peer-review process

Overview of the peer-review process

This journal operates a single-anonymized review process (the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author). All contributions will be initially assessed by an editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of one independent expert reviewer to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The editors are responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The editors' decisions are final. Details of the peer-review process follow.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Objectivity

Judgments should be objective and well considered. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with any participant.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must retain confidentiality with respect to the reviewed article. Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors or third parties.

Advising

Reviewers should be alert for additional resources or information that could be brought to the author's attention for improvement of the article.

Responsibilities of the journal and its editors

The governance structure of the journal and its acceptance procedures are transparent and designed to ensure the highest quality of published material. Business concerns are not allowed to compromise intellectual and ethical standards. The editorial process is handled by the Editorial Board. It consists of a coordinating editor, 5 national editors, and 15 associate editors. The roles of the coordinating, national and associate editors in the editorial process are distinct. Authors can submit manuscripts directly to one of the associate editors or one of the national editors; this editor becomes the (initial) handling editor. The editorial process proceeds as follows:

  1. A submission made directly to an associate editor is initially screened by that editor. If the manuscript is clearly outside the scope of the journal or does not meet its standards, it may be rejected without external review. Otherwise, the associate editor will normally obtain expert advice. Based on this advice, the manuscript is either rejected or transferred to a national editor for a full peer review and a final editorial decision. When transferring the manuscript, the associate editor typically recommends suitable referees.
  2. A submission made directly to a national editor follows the same initial screening process described above. If it passes this stage, the national editor oversees the full peer-review process and makes the final editorial decision.
  3. Submissions may be transferred between associate editors or between national editors, for example, to assign the manuscript to an editor with expertise in the relevant field or to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
  4. The handling editor may request revisions from the author(s) at any stage of the review process
    (for example, to take into account a referee's comments). This does not imply that the manuscript will be accepted if the revision is made.
  5. The national editor's final decision is based on one or more referee reports. The decision may be discussed among the national editors and the coordinating editor.
  6. The coordinating editor oversees the editorial process and ensures that submissions are handled in a timely manner.