Editorial Workflow

The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process.

The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online Manuscript Tracking System. Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the journal’s editorial office to ensure that it is suitable to go through the normal peer review process. The manuscript is then sent to a number of external reviewers for peer-review based on the subject of the manuscript and the lack of any potential conflicts of interest with the submitting authors. The reviewers are asked to submit their review reports on the manuscripts within three weeks along with their recommendation of one of the following actions:

• Publish Unaltered
• Consider after Minor Changes
• Consider after Major Changes
• Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel

If the majority of the evaluations that are received by the end of this first round of review recommend the manuscript be rejected, the manuscript will be rejected. Otherwise, if one or more reviewers recommended that the manuscript should be revised, the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor or major changes suggested by the reviewers. Once this is done, the manuscript is then sent to a number of Editorial Board Members based on the subject of the manuscript, the availability of the Editors, and the lack of any potential conflicts of interest with the submitting authors. The journal’s Editors will have one week to review the original manuscript, the review reports received from the independent peer reviewers, and the revised version of the manuscript and provide either a recommendation for the publication of the manuscript, along with a written commentary detailing any changes that the authors can make to improve their manuscript before final publication, or a written critique of why the manuscript should not be published.

If the majority of the editorial evaluations that are received by the end of this second round of review recommend the manuscript be accepted for publication, the manuscript will be accepted. Otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected.

The editorial model is designed to provide fast peer review for each manuscript while at the same time ensuring that only manuscripts that are both rigorous and provide a useful contribution to their field of research are accepted for publication.

The identities of the independent peer reviewers are revealed to the Editorial Board Members who handle the manuscripts but not to the authors during the course of the peer review process. If the manuscript is rejected, the identities of the Editors will also remain confidential. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the names of the Editors who recommended the publication of the manuscript will be published alongside the manuscript.