Peer Review Process

When a new manuscript is submitted to the journal, the production editor first checks it for conformity with the author guidelines. The editor in chief then checks the fit with the scope and the overall quality. If not satisfactory, the manuscript is either returned to the authors or desk rejected.

When a manuscript is considered suitable for peer review, a communicating editor is assigned who handles the peer review process. The corresponding author is informed by the editorial office and is given the manuscript reference number that will be used during all communication.

The manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers and the reviewers are asked to return their review within one month after having received the manuscript files. Longer delay can be granted by the communicating editor upon request. Keep in mind that we use single blind peer review: reviewers know the authors’ identities but the authors do not know who the reviewers are. By default, all documents are therefore anonymised. Reviewers can contact the editorial office to receive technical advice on how to anonymise documents. Reviewers can however choose to reveal their identity by signing the review report or by explicitly mentioning this to the communicating editor. The reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations: accept, revision, revision with resubmission to the reviewers, or reject.

The communicating editor evaluates the review reports and recommendations and either contacts the corresponding author to ask for a revision of the manuscript, or sends their recommendation to the editor in chief (accept/reject).

The revised manuscript is sent to the communicating editor who checks whether all comments were addressed and they handle an additional round of review, if needed. By default, authors are given one month to complete the revision. Longer delay can be granted by the communicating editor upon request. Once the revised manuscript is satisfactory, the communicating editor sends their recommendation to the editor in chief.

The final decision (accept/reject) is made by the editor in chief and the editorial office will communicate this decision to the corresponding author by e-mail. Reviewers who participated in the process will be informed of the final decision separately.