Peer Review Policy

Articles submitted for possible publication are subjected to peer-review. We follow a double-blind and peer review process but after publication, the reviewers names maybe disclosed if required by a legal authority. Articles are first reviewed by editors. The editor may reject it out of hand either because it is not within the aims and scope of that journal or because it is manifestly of a low quality so that it cannot be considered at all. Articles that are found suitable for review are then sent to a minimum of two experts in the respective field. Referees (the peer reviewers) of a paper are unknown to each other. Referees are asked to classify the paper as publishable immediately, publishable with amendments and improvements, or not publishable. Referees’ evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript. Referees’ comments are then seen by the editor and forwarded to the author for further action.

Editors of the journals must justify any important deviation from the described process. Editors should not reverse decisions on publication unless serious problems are identified.

Editors should publish guidance to either authors and reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and will refer or link this code.

Further details are available under the link Editorial and Peer Review Process for each respective journal.