The peer review process is handled and recorded via an online editorial system. After a manuscript is submitted via the online system by a researcher, the Editor-in-Chief screens the manuscripts and rejects unsuitable or poor-quality manuscripts at this point. Articles deemed appropriate for peer review are forwarded to appropriate Associate Editor with expertise in the theme of the topic. The Associate Editor will then send the manuscripts to 2-3 reviewers selected by him or her/or members of the Editorial Board. Reviewers are invited if they are experienced researchers with expertise in the content of the manuscript.
Following acceptance to perform the review, the reviewers are furnished with a copy of the manuscript and the journal’s peer review guidelines, to which they are asked to adhere to. The identity of the authors and their affiliation details are blanked out to ensure a blind review. Reviewers are asked to complete the review within 4 weeks. In exceptional circumstances, extension may be granted. Reviewers submit their reports via the online editorial system with a recommendation on the readiness or otherwise of the paper for publication. The Associate Editor collates the review reports and decides on the status of the manuscript/s accordingly. This decision is communicated to the author/s by the Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief, depending on who is available.
Manuscripts may be: accepted (subject to minor or no revisions); declined; returned to the authors for revision (to address all reviewer comments in detail, with the possibility of resending for peer review depending on the nature of the reviewer comments); or invited for re-submission altogether. This Journal adopts the double-blind peer-review approach. Authors are not made aware of the identity of a reviewer. The Editor-in-Chief has final decision on the acceptance or rejection of all manuscripts. The decision is communicated to the Editorial Office to initiate the production process.
