Peer review process
Peer review exists to ensure that journals publish good science which is of benefit to entire scientific community. Sometimes authors find the peer-review process intimidating because it can lead to the rejection of their manuscript. Keep in mind that revisions and improvement are part of the publication process and actually help raise the quality of your manuscript. Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they review—they offer authors free advice.
Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The importance of peer review system includes (1) validation academic work, (2) helping to improve the quality of published research, and (3) increasing network possibilities within research communities. Peer review comes in different types. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Double-blind review is preferred by our journal. In this system, both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. Some advantages of this model could be listed including (1) author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status or previous publication history. (2) Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
Manuscripts that pass initial screening will be forwarded to the appropriate section editor. The section editor may suggest rejection based on fatal design flaw, inappropriate replications, lack of novelty, or other major concerns. If appropriate, the paper will be sent out for peer review, usually to 2 independent reviewers who will provide comments. The section editor may recommend rejection or acceptance at this point, after which the manuscript and reviewer comments are made available to the editor-in-chief for a final decision to the authors. The manuscript will be sent back to the corresponding author for revision according to the guidelines of the reviewers. Authors have 6 weeks to complete the revision, which shall be returned to the section editor. Failure to return the manuscript within 6 weeks will will lock the author out of re-submitting the revision.
Rejected manuscripts can be resubmitted only with an invitation from the section editor or editor-in-chief. Revised versions of previously rejected manuscripts are treated as new submissions.