Peer Review Process

After an initial review of the submitted work by the Editor, the manuscript is anonymized by removing the names of the authors, their affiliations, and any other information that could identify them. The anonymized typescript is then sent to two independent reviewers who have no direct interest or affiliations with the authors. The usual time allotted for the review is two weeks; however, the editors aim to issue the final decision within two months of submission.

A standard review form is used, allowing reviewers to provide separate comments for the authors and the editors. The reviewer must give a final statement indicating whether:
a) the manuscript is suitable for publication without revision, b) the manuscript is suitable for publication with revision, or c) the manuscript should be rejected.

Both reviews are evaluated by the editor, who makes the final decision. In cases of controversial reviews, the scientific merit of the manuscript and its value for the journal are considered. Additionally, other reviewers may be invited, or the opinion of other members of the editorial board may be sought before the Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision.

If the authors are members of the journal's editorial board, the review process is organized by a member of the editorial board who has no direct affiliation with the authors.

The primary tasks of the editors are to organize peer reviews, oversee editorial proofs and corrections, and prepare individual issues of the journal. Members of the editorial board supervise the scientific quality of the journal, communicate with potential authors and sponsors, and suggest relevant and current topics to be covered.