Peer-Review

This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. When reviewers strongly disagree on whether or not a paper deserves to get into a journal, the final decision to publish rests with the editors.

Based on the following criteria, the reviewers assess if the paper may be accepted without revisions, with minor or major revisions, or if it should be rejected. The core of any review is an objective assessment of both the technical rigour and the novelty of the presented work.

The Criteria:

1. Clarity of thesis statement and declaration of purpose.
2. The relevance of the theoretical discussion and description of the empirical investigation.
3. Reproducible methods of the research and results.
4. Well-founded discussion/analysis.
5. Well-structured and logically coherent composition.
6. Unambiguous and properly analysed data.
7. Data supported by conclusions.
8. The originality of the work.
9. Awareness of relevant research.

Peer-Reviewer Responsibilities to Authors:

1. Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with the rationale for your opinion.
2. Provide your peer-review as soon as possible within 21 day. If you cannot do so, please contact the journal office immediately.
3. Indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
4. Avoid personal comments or criticism.
5. Maintain the confidentiality of the peer-review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper without permission from the editorial office.

Peer-Reviewer Responsibilities to Editors:

1. Alert the editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest (see Conflicts of interest) you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
2. Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
3. Note any ethical concerns, such as the substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.

Peer-Reviewer Responsibilities to Readers:

1. Ensure that positively reviewed papers meet the journal standards.
2. Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
3. Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.

Reviews can and should be critical, but we ask reviewers to keep in mind that dismissive language and personalised criticisms may be viewed as reflecting bias or ulterior motives on the part of the referee.

Editors of the journal are asking reviewers to prepare their reviews using a template. 

Instructions to Reviewers:

In the journal, we aim to provide authors with clear feedback that will help to guide them as they improve their work. To help us do this, we ask (but do not require) that you prepare your review using the template. The idea is to anchor specific criticisms and suggestions to the specific points in the paper. In our experience, reviews prepared this way are clearer, and they help us to understand your concerns better so that we can make decisions that are as specific and as helpful as possible.

Comments to Authors

 Summary: Please provide a general summary of the paper. This summary can be brief. Your thoughts on the level of advance the paper provide and its importance/interest to the community would be helpful. If you feel that prior literature undercuts any part of the paper, please provide references.

Critique: Please list the main points of the paper. For each point, indicate whether the data sufficiently support that point. If the point is not sufficiently supported, please indicate the kind of evidence is you feel is required, and include any suggestions for specific experiments. If you feel that certain concerns are more crucial than others, it would be helpful to highlight them.

Other comments: Please comment on any other issues (technical, data presentation, textual changes) that are not necessarily linked to any of the specific points of the paper.