Peer Review Policy
All submitted papers were reviewed using a double-blind peer review process in which suggestions were solicited on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers. All author names and affiliations are removed before submitting the paper for review. On submission, an article receives a manuscript number. This number must be cited in all correspondence relating to the article.
New submissions are sent to two independent reviewers, selected by the Chief Editor who may be assisted by the appropriate Editorial Board. Recommendations from reviewers are sent to authors by the Chief Editor who is responsible for the objectivity of the assessment and review findings. Revised articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief. When an article has been accepted, the Chief Editor will notify the author in which edition the paper will be published.
The editor-in-chief will make the final decision based on the reviewers' comments. Accepted articles will be available online following the journal's peer-review process. Plagiarism screening will be carried out using Turnitin.
The decision of the reviewer is a top priority for the editor to make decisions. The time taken by the reviewer to complete the review process round is three weeks. Generally, prospective reviewers will be selected based on their reputation according to their expertise. Decisions on publication, amendment, or rejection are based on their reports/recommendations. After review, there will be four kinds of editor's decisions based on the reviewer's recommendations:
> Accept Submissions: Submissions will be accepted without revision.
> Revision Required: Submissions will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
> Resubmit for Review: Submissions need to be reworked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. However, this will require a second round of review.
> Reject Submissions: Submissions will not be published in the journal.