Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All contributions are subject to normal reviewing processes. Please note that our reviewing model is single-blind peer review: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities. Any reviewer can choose to unveil his/her identity by signing the review report. Reviewers can contact the editorial office to receive technical advice on anonymity of documents. An international Editorial Board supervises acceptance of papers.

When a manuscript is considered suitable for peer review, it is assigned to a communicating editor. The corresponding author is informed by the editorial office and is given the manuscript reference number that will be used for all communications. The manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers (members of the Board or external). The journal gives a target of four weeks for the return of reviewer comments. Longer delay can be granted by the communicating editor upon request from the reviewer, depending on factors such as the manuscript's length and the availability of the reviewer.

The reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations: accept in its original form; minor revision; major revision; major revision with resubmission to reviewers; or reject. The communicating editor evaluates the review reports and recommendations and:
- contacts directly the corresponding author and asks to revise the manuscript,
- or sends his/her own recommendation to the editor in chief (accept/reject).

In case of revision, the communicating editor handles reception of the revised files, and an additional round of review, if needed. Authors are required to send their revised version within four weeks. Longer delay can be granted by the communicating editor upon request from the corresponding author, depending on factors such as the extend of the revisions asked, the manuscript’s length and the availability of co-authors.

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