Any manuscript submitted through an online process and reviewed by a partner will determine whether the manuscript is loaded or not in this journal. The reviewer for each submitted manuscript is 2 reviewers and are assisted pre-assessment by a team of editors who have the appropriate knowledge or expertise. The peer-review process to manuscipt of which were fast-track review and reguler review will be conducted for 1-2 weeks and more too 4 weeks. The reviewer's review is done by considering the track record of research that has been published at the national and international level.
Blind Peer Review Process of Manuscript:
- 1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is good reason.
- 2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
- 3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
- 4. Ready?, Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequate or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or were results so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
- 5. What is your initial impression?, If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.