Review Policy

The goal of the review process is to provide high-quality and detailed feedback on a submitted article that includes polite and helpful comments and suggestions for improvement for authors and a solid basis for fair and transparent decision making for the publishing team.
Each submitted article that meets the formal criteria is carefully evaluated by at least two reviewers. In case of major disagreement or highly conflicting opinions, another reviewer may be included.
Reviewers should not have a conflict of interest in accepting and conducting an assessment.

Evaluation
Each reviewer submits their own evaluation report that includes the following aspects and provides polite and helpful comments and suggestions for improvements:
• Appropriateness of scope for the journal and main contribution
• Quality and novelty of covered research including methodology and evaluation
• Structure and clarity of writing
In addition, the reviewers should stress if applicable
• Possible plagiarism issues
• Potential need for spelling and grammar improvements
Finally, reviewers should state a brief conclusion based on the comments above justifying their evaluation
- Accept as is
The current version of the article is ready for copy editing and the publishing.
- Accept with minor revisions
A review of the revised version is not necessary. Authors follow the reviewers’ lists of minor modifications such as corrections of typos, missing references, etc.
- Accept with major revisions
A major revision of the article is required based on reviewers’ recommendations. The revised version will be reviewed by at least one reviewer of the original version.
- Reject
A revision of the submitted article is not recommended based on the review results.