Each received article will be evaluated independently by two members of the editorial board, which will analyze the study without knowing the identity of the author(s). The review criteria are the following:
- degree to which the manuscript fits the mission of the journal;
- the scientific quality of each section of the article (beginning with the title);
- the scientific contribution to the field;
- technical aspects (preparation of the manuscript etc.);
- the clarity of presentation.
The feed-back will be sent to the first author and it may be one of the following: accepted; requires minor revision; requires major revision; rejected. The feed-back will include the observations of the two independent reviewers.
The reviewer's guide is avalable here.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews will be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.