Peer review
The Peer Review Process
a. Submission
Every research article starts its journey with a submission. The authors upload their manuscript — usually through the online system — along with figures, tables, and a short cover letter explaining why their work matters and why it fits the journal. This is the first official step in turning a research idea into a published scientific contribution. Once submitted, the paper receives a tracking number so that both authors and editors can follow its progress.
b. Initial Editorial Check
After submission, the journal’s editorial team gives the paper a first look. They check whether it follows the journal’s scope, format, and ethical rules, ensuring there’s no plagiarism and that the research is original. At this point, the editor also decides whether the paper seems strong enough to send out for review. If it clearly doesn’t fit, the manuscript may be “desk rejected” quickly so authors can revise or submit elsewhere, saving valuable time for everyone.
c. Editor Assigns Reviewers
If the paper passes the first filter, the editor looks for reviewers — other scientists who know the topic well. Usually two or three experts are invited to give their opinions. Choosing reviewers is a thoughtful process: they must have the right background, no conflict of interest, and enough time to provide a fair and constructive evaluation. Once they agree, the peer review process truly begins.
d. Peer Review
Every manuscript submitted to the journal is reviewed by independent experts in the field. Peer review is designed to improve the quality of the work, not simply to judge it.
The journal uses a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities. This approach helps ensure an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation based solely on the quality and scientific merit of the work.
During the review, each reviewer reads the manuscript carefully and assesses how solid, original, and clearly presented the research is. They check the logic, the methods, the quality of the data, and whether the conclusions are supported by evidence. Reviewers then write a report with comments, suggestions, and one of several possible recommendations — accept, revise, or reject. A good review is both critical and helpful, pointing out ways the authors can improve their work.
Reviewers are expected to:
- Provide constructive, respectful, and objective feedback
- Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents
- Declare any potential conflicts of interest
- Alert the editors if they notice possible ethical issues, such as plagiarism or data irregularities
- Serious ethical issues may require retraction
- In some cases, an expression of concern may be issued while an investigation is ongoing
All such actions follow COPE recommendations.
Allegations of misconduct are taken seriously and handled with care. If ethical breaches are confirmed, appropriate actions may include manuscript rejection, retraction, notification of relevant institutions, or restrictions on future submissions.
e. Editorial Decision
Editors handle all manuscripts with care, fairness, and confidentiality. Decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the work, without influence from the authors’ background, institution, nationality, or personal views.
The editorial team is responsible for:
- Ensuring an impartial and timely peer-review process
- Protecting the confidentiality of authors and reviewers
- Managing conflicts of interest
- Acting promptly and transparently if ethical concerns arise
After receiving all the reviewers’ reports, the editor weighs their opinions and decides on the next step. The editor may agree with one reviewer more than another or may look for a balanced middle ground. The possible outcomes are accepted, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The editor then writes to the authors, sharing the decision along with anonymous reviewer comments and suggestions.
f. Revisions (if needed)
If revisions are required, the authors go back to work. They carefully read the reviewers’ feedback and make changes to improve the manuscript — clarifying methods, adding missing details, or discussing results more thoroughly. They also prepare a response letter, explaining how each comment has been addressed. This stage often strengthens the paper and helps authors see their research from a broader perspective.
g. Second Review (optional)
Sometimes, after major revisions, the editor sends the revised paper back to the same reviewers for another look. This “second round” allows reviewers to confirm that their comments were properly addressed and that the work now meets the journal’s standards. If only minor changes were requested, the editor might skip this step and decide directly.
h. Final Decision
At this point, the editor makes the final call. If the reviewers are satisfied and the paper meets the scientific and ethical requirements, it is accepted. If serious issues remain, it may still be rejected or sent for further revision. The final decision closes the review cycle, and the authors are informed promptly.
i. Acceptance and Publication
Once accepted, the paper moves into production. It’s copyedited, typeset, and formatted according to the journal’s style. The authors check a proof to correct small errors before publication. Finally, the article appears online, gets a DOI, and becomes part of the scientific record — freely accessible to readers and citable by other researchers. This moment marks the successful end of a long and collaborative process that helps maintain the quality and credibility of science.