Peer review process

Publication of articles is dependent solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by editors and/or peer, reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution and acknowledge the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers.

Initial evaluation of manuscripts: the Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted, those rejected at this stage are article insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside scope.

Type of peer review: submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two experts who will be asked to evaluate the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The method is a double-blind review

Review reports: reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
[1] Is original by stating the objectives and gap clearly; 
[2] Is methodologically sound; 
[3] Follows appropriate ethical guidelines; 
[4] Has results/findings which are clearly presented and support the conclusions; 
[5] Citation and references are written correctly; 
[6] Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process.

Decision: reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and of the Editor’s decision is final.

Becoming a reviewer: if you are not currently a reviewer, but would like to be added to the list of reviewers, please contact us. You may also be able to cite your work in this journal as part of your professional development requirements. Reviewers are volunteers who contribute their expertise to the science, thus no financial payments are made.