Peer review policies

EDITORIAL WORKFLOW

STEP

Editorial Office (EO) /Editor in Chief (EIC)

1

Author submits paper

2

EO executes Technical Check

3

If the paper meets the established standards, the EO assign the paper to the EIC

4

The EIC sends invitations to individuals he/she believes would be appropriate reviewers. Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. In case of refusal, the EIC seeks other potential reviewers. There are generally two reviewers for each article

5

The reviewers first of all express an overall opinion on the paper, with a recommendation to accept, revise or reject it

6

If the opinion is favorable to publication, the reviewers may suggest a review (flagged as either major or minor). Reviewers are required to fill in a form where they indicate some suggestions to both the Publisher and the Author

7

The EI considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, he/she may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision

8

The EO sends a decision notification through the editorial process platform to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. If the paper was sent back forrevision, the EIC evaluates the new version of the article, checking if the author has inserted the changes suggested by the reviewers. In some cases, the EIC may decide to send the new version of the article to the reviewers for a final check

9

If the new version of the article is accepted, the EO prepares it for publication