1. The author submits the paper to the journal through an online system.

2. Editor-in-Chief (in the case of special issues jointly with the guest editor) checks that the paper is appropriate, meets the aims and scope of the journal and is interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed. If yes, Editor-in-Chief or managing editor assigns an editor (associate editor), responsible for handling the peer review process.

3. An associate editor checks the paper’s structure against the Journal’s Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections. If not, the paper may be returned to the author for improvement. During this stage Associate editor or managing editor checks the paper through the iThenticate plagiarism detection service.

The aforementioned steps usually take up to 7 days.


4. The associate editor sends invitations to appropriate reviewers. Reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. When they accept the invitation, they have 3 weeks for review. At this stage of the review process, at least 2 reviewers are assigned, they agreed to submit a review. The reviews are double-blind.

5. The reviewer may reject the paper after the first read of the paper if major problems are found at this stage. Otherwise, he or she will prepare a descriptive review. Each review contains detailed remarks for the author(s) and recommendation to:

- acceptance;
- minor revision;
- major revision;
- rejection.

6. The associate editor considers all the returned reviews. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer for the third opinion before making a decision. When the final decision is known, the editor sends information to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The comments of reviewers are anonymous.

The review process usually takes up to 30 days.

7. If the paper is accepted, it's sent to DTP. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the associate editor include comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. If the paper was sent back for major revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, if they agreed to take part in further participation. Minor changes might be done by the associate editor.