Peer Review
Review process flow The journal aims to provide a fast publication process, with reviewers' comments generally sent to authors within three weeks of submission. Based on these comments, the final decision (acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection) is communicated to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they want to review revised manuscripts, but the editorial office may request a re-review regardless. Authors should submit revised manuscripts within two weeks for minor corrections, and within 4 weeks for major revisions. Along with the revised manuscript, authors must submit a filled review comment form and any rebuttals. The journal prioritizes rapid dissemination of scientific findings, typically publishing suitable manuscripts within six weeks of submission. In special circumstances where the review process takes longer, authors will be informed. Manuscripts with significant findings receive the highest priority for expedited publication. The journal promotes research integrity and reserves the right to re-review any manuscript at any stage before final publication if misconduct is suspected. The Editor has the final say in manuscript acceptance or rejection.
Review guideline The journal has a strict policy against duplicate publication and plagiarism. If unethical practices are suspected in a manuscript, reviewers should report them with evidence. Studies replicating previous research with new data can be published if clearly declared.
Manuscripts should not be rejected solely for lacking novelty if they are robust and technically sound. The journal prioritizes technical rigor over subjective interest, letting the readership decide the importance post-publication. Reviewers should assess the methods for reproducibility, the robustness and control of data, relevance and currency of references, and whether statistical analyses are necessary and appropriate. Conclusions must be supported by the data and free from bias.
References should be relevant and adequate. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive criticism, avoiding offensive language, and suggesting improvements. Negative reviews should clearly explain manuscript weaknesses for authors to address.
Rejected papers can be formally appealed by writing to the provided contact email with detailed reasons and responses to reviewers' comments. Appeals are processed after new submissions, and if an appeal is rejected, further appeals are not allowed, nor can the paper be resubmitted elsewhere.
Reviewers’ role Reviewers evaluate the scientific merit, clarity, conciseness, relevance, and significance of the manuscript, providing unbiased assessments promptly. They give constructive critiques, suggest improvements in content, originality, and scope, ensure methods are detailed and the study design is appropriate, and confirm the inclusion of relevant citations. Reviewers maintain confidentiality, impartiality, integrity, and timeliness, avoiding personal comments or criticism, and ultimately recommend whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.
Review guideline The journal has a strict policy against duplicate publication and plagiarism. If unethical practices are suspected in a manuscript, reviewers should report them with evidence. Studies replicating previous research with new data can be published if clearly declared.
Manuscripts should not be rejected solely for lacking novelty if they are robust and technically sound. The journal prioritizes technical rigor over subjective interest, letting the readership decide the importance post-publication. Reviewers should assess the methods for reproducibility, the robustness and control of data, relevance and currency of references, and whether statistical analyses are necessary and appropriate. Conclusions must be supported by the data and free from bias.
References should be relevant and adequate. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive criticism, avoiding offensive language, and suggesting improvements. Negative reviews should clearly explain manuscript weaknesses for authors to address.
Rejected papers can be formally appealed by writing to the provided contact email with detailed reasons and responses to reviewers' comments. Appeals are processed after new submissions, and if an appeal is rejected, further appeals are not allowed, nor can the paper be resubmitted elsewhere.
Reviewers’ role Reviewers evaluate the scientific merit, clarity, conciseness, relevance, and significance of the manuscript, providing unbiased assessments promptly. They give constructive critiques, suggest improvements in content, originality, and scope, ensure methods are detailed and the study design is appropriate, and confirm the inclusion of relevant citations. Reviewers maintain confidentiality, impartiality, integrity, and timeliness, avoiding personal comments or criticism, and ultimately recommend whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.