The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.
The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online publishing management system.
All manuscripts are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or one of the members of the Editorial Board, who may decide to reject the paper or send it for external peer review. Manuscripts accepted for peer review will be reviewed by at least two experts in the field. After peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will study the paper together with reviewer comments to make one of the following decisions: accept, accept pending minor revision, accept pending major revision, or reject. Authors will receive comments on the manuscript regardless of the decision. In the event that a manuscript is accepted pending revision, the author will be responsible for completing the revision within 60 days.
The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript is accepted.
The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, suitability to journal, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal. Any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted.