Peer Reviewer Process

Each article submitted to the editorial board will be selected through the Initial Review process by the Editorial Board. Then, the article will be sent to the reviewer and will enter the next selection stage through the Double-Blind Review process. At this stage, the editor will assign one (1) or more reviewers for each article. This process takes a maximum of one month. In each manuscript, the reviewers will assess the substance and technical aspects. The reviewers involved have experience in managing and publishing prestigious journals spread across the country and abroad.

Initial Manuscript Review Process

Read the abstract to make sure you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to decline to review a paper if you have a good reason. Read the information the journal provides to reviewers so you will know a) The type of manuscript (e.g., review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript; b) Any other journal requirements the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style)

Know the scope and mission of the journal to ensure that the topic of the paper fits that scope.

Ready? Read the entire manuscript initially to see if it is worth publishing - just make a few notes about the major issues if any: a) Is the question asked interesting and significant enough; b) Are the design and/or methods adequate or fatally flawed? (For original research papers); c) Are the results substantial enough to be considered for publication (or are only two or more variables presented or are the results so flawed that they make the paper unpublishable)?

What are your initial impressions? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only a few comments/questions: solid, interesting, and novel; good methodology used; results are well presented; discussion is well formulated with interpretations based on sound scientific reasoning, etc., with only a few comments/questions, proceed with writing a review; b) So flawed that you must reject it: proceed with writing a review; c) A mix between “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you are not sure whether to reject or not: The paper may be a worthy manuscript, but there are major issues that need to be addressed.

Full Manuscript Review Process

Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, i.e., has a logical progression and clear organization?

Is the manuscript concise and easy to understand? Are there any sections that should be reduced, omitted/expanded/added?

Note any major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are only a few sections that are poorly written or incorrect, make a note to notify the author of those specific sections. If there are consistent problems throughout the entire section, pick out just one or two examples if necessary—do not try to edit them all.)

Abbreviations: Used judiciously and arranged in a way that readers will have no trouble remembering what the abbreviation represents.

Follow the journal’s style, format, and other guidelines.

Citations are given when providing evidence-based information from external sources.