All submitted manuscripts undergo an extensive peer-review process and circulate among Author, Editorial Office, Reviewer, and Publisher before final publication. The whole process consists of the following editorial workflow:
All steps, from manuscript submission to final publication, are performed in the OJS. All submitted manuscripts are initially quality controlled by the Editorial Office for manuscript formatting, reference provision, plagiarism checking, and completion of all necessary files required to perform the review process. Once initial quality controls are passed, The Editor decides the initiation of the review process or decline to do so based on the quality of the presented work and scope of the journal.
If The Editor finds the manuscript of high quality and is within the aims and scope of the journal, the manuscript is forwarded to at least 2 expert reviewers in the field. Reviewers are requested to (i) assess each section of the manuscript for values ranging from 0 to 5, (ii) to provide comments to Author (iii) comments to Editor, (iv) recommendations (accept, reject, minor revision, or major revision) and (v) willingness to review the revise version of this manuscript in case of minor and major revision.
Based on the reviewers’ comments, suggestions, and overall assessments, the Editor recommends one of the following options:
(i) accept, (ii) reject, (iii) minor revision, (iv) major revision, (v) returned.
In case of acceptance, the author is notified and the editor processes the manuscript for formatting, copy-editing, proofreading, reference linking, metadata generation for indexing, and publication purposes. The rejected manuscripts are closed, whereas manuscripts with minor or major revision are required appropriate actions from the Author for re-consideration by the Editor. The Editor either makes final recommendations or considers another round of review process.