Log in

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Each paper is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if it is judged suitable for this publication, it is then sent to two independent referees for double blind peer review. Based on their recommendation, as well as consultation between relevant Editorial Board Members, the Editor-in-Chief then decides whether the paper should be accepted as is, revised or rejected.

A diagram of the process can be seen here.

Reviewer Guidelines

The reviewers are asked to give their comments for the following topics related to the manuscript.

• Title
  (relevant, timely and reflects the content and purpose of the research)
• Abstract
  (Abstract includes information important for understanding the content of the paper)
• Keywords
  (Accurate and sufficiently reflect the content of the study)
• Introduction
  (The introduction clearly defines the purpose and objective of the work/research)
• Literature review and hypothesis development
  (Worked out a review of previous research in the treated area/ The rationale for the paper and for the hypotheses development are well grounded/ It is based on a known theory or on an interesting issue)
• Methodology
  (The research methodology for the study is appropriate and applied properly)
• Findings and discussion
  (Discussion of the results is based on analysis of data; results support the applied methodology and conclusions/ results are not overstated or overgeneralized.)
• Conclusion
  (The conclusion is based and contributes to the discharge of treated problems/ Implications and recommendations for management are relevant and useful)
• Contribution
  (The paper makes a significant contribution to the body of knowledge related to this Journal. It is highly significant, breaks new ground, and provides a foundation for future
• Language and formatting
  (The paper has clarity of presentation, easy to read and free from grammatical or spelling errors)
• Any other comments

Based on the above comments the reviewer can recommend followings

• Publish as it is
• Conditionally accept with minor revisions (editor will check)
• Conditionally accept with the necessary changes as recommended by reviewer
• The article should be thoroughly changed
• Reject

Section Policies