Peer Review Policy
Every manuscript is peer reviewed, according to the following procedures:
- Initial manuscript evaluation
The Chief Editors will promptly evaluate blinded manuscripts. Manuscripts not aligning with the journal's aims, scope, or quality standards will be returned to authors. Submissions meeting the minimum criteria proceed to the Section (Associate) Editors, covering manuscript subject of interest, who are required to find two appropriate experts for review, external to the editorial board.
- Type and duration of peer review
The journal employs double-blind reviewing, in which the reviewer is unknown to the author, and the identity of the author is unknown to the reviewer. The review process is confidential, and reviewers are expected to declare any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission. The peer reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper evaluation and which they can assess in a timely manner. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Upon acceptance to review the manuscript, the reviewer is asked to submit its review, evaluating articles originality, scientific contribution, clarity, and relevance to the scope of the journal, within 4 weeks if not before. Reviewer form is embedded within Open Journal System. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and their judgments should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers' report
Referees advise the Chief Editors. The Editors' decision to accept or to reject a manuscript will be sent promptly to the author, with suitably detailed explanations. The paper could be accepted as is, accepted with minor revisions, revised and resubmitted or declined. In most cases revisions are required to improve the manuscripts and therefore it is requested from authors to submit response to reviewers point by point along with revised manuscript.
- The Editors' decision
Chief Editors are responsible for the final decision to accept or to decline a given manuscript. If decisions of two reviewers mismatch substantially, the second round of review is initiated.
- Copyright agreement and consent to publish
Upon acceptance of the manuscript, and before publishing in this journal, all co-authors are required to sign an agreement, consenting to transfer the publishing rights to the CSA, agreeing to retain copyrights and warranting that the article is original, authored by the given author(s), and has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for publication before its acceptance. Additionally, corresponding author is required to deliver proofreading confirmation. The proofreading is author(s) responsibility and corrections should therefore be clear and unambiguous. The aim of proofreading is to correct errors and not to modify the content of the paper.
