Peer-Review & Editorial Process

Ensuring scientific integrity through rigorous double-blind evaluation.

1
 

Initial Editorial Review

Every submission undergoes a pre-screen by the Editorial Office to verify ethical policy compliance and technical preparation. Manuscripts failing these checks are returned for revision or rejected immediately.

Scope Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or Guest Editor evaluates the manuscript’s scientific soundness and alignment with the journal’s scope.
2
 

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent experts. To ensure total objectivity, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.

  • Reviewers must not have co-authored with the authors in the last 5 years.
  • Reviewer comments remain strictly confidential.
  • The Editor holds final authority on the decision.
3

Editorial Decisions

Accept

Minor Revisions

In principle accepted. Authors have 7 days to finalize changes.

Reconsider

Major Revisions

Success depends on point-by-point response. 15 days allowed for resubmission.

Reject

Reject & Encourage

Additional experiments required. New submission encouraged after data completion.

Final

Reject

Serious flaws or lack of originality. No offer for resubmission provided.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection via email to the Editorial Office. A detailed justification and point-by-point response to reviewer comments are required.

The Editor-in-Chief will appoint an independent Editorial Board member or external scientist to provide an advisory recommendation. This second decision is final.