Peer review has two key functions:
- To act as a filter and determine the validity, significance and originality of the work to ensure only good research is published.
- To improve the quality of research submitted for publication by giving reviewers the opportunity to suggest improvements.
Articles that are submitted to the journal are reviewed either by Editorial Board members or by external highly qualified researchers. Reviewers are appointed by the Journal Editor for every peer-review process. The contact with the reviewers are managed by the Editor-in-Manger of the journal.
If you have been asked to review a paper, please visit the following Ethical Guidelines web page for instruction.
How to become a reviewer?
Researchers that are interested to apply for reviewers for the journal are kindly asked to submit their application by e-mail to:
with attached a detailed CV specifying their personal data (first name, last name, Title/Academic degree), the affiliation to scientific institute or organization, the research areas of expertize and a resume of their scientific publication.
Accepted candidates will be then registered in the website of the journal as reviewer by the journal manager.
The choice of whether or not to choose a particular reviewer for a paper is entirely in charge to the editor: no role is played by the Publisher in this decision.
Guide for Reviewers
Articles that are submitted to the journal are initially viewed by co-editor in chief, who in turn redirects the submission to the specialized editorial board member who then forwarded the submission to highly qualified reviewers. The nomination of reviewers for each article is usually done by one of the editors who is specialized in submission topic after checking some general issues.
Peer review is a process of evaluating the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts which they can use to make improvements to the work. Thus, ensuring the highest standard possible. Authors expect reviews to contain an honest and constructive judgment, which is completed in a timely manner and provides feedback that is both clear and concise.
If you have been asked to review a paper, the following frequently asked questions may be helpful.
How long time do I have for making the review?
-Three weeks from the date of receipt of the article, unless otherwise agreed. Of course, it is an advantage, particularly for the authors if you can do it at once.
Is there a reviewing form to be filled in?
-A form is available. The reviewing form will automatically be sent to all reviewers. Notice, however, that the use of the form is obligatory, and free-text reviews are also welcome.
If the paper is really weak, do you want me to make a full review anyway?
-An explanation of what the author(s) have to do in order to do better next time is, of course, a service to them. However, if the answer is going to be no, then it's also in the authors' interest to get to know that quickly. Therefore we prefer speed over detail in such cases. In all other cases, a detailed review is expected.
What if You are Unable to Review?
-Sometimes you will be asked to review a paper when you do not have sufficient time available. In this situation, you should make the editorial office aware that you are unavailable as soon as possible. It is beneficial if you can recommend an alternative expert or someone whose opinion you trust.
If you are unable to complete your report on a paper in the agreed time-frame required by the journal, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.
-Confidentiality and Anonymity
-Confidentiality of the Submitted Article
-Anonymity of Reviewers
-Reviewers are of course free to divulge their identity to the authors if they should desire so.
-Confidentiality of Reviews
-Reviewers are requested to consider all reviews as confidential. This applies both to the reviews they write themselves, and to those made by the other reviewers.
-Reporting possible research misconducts.
-Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.
-Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review.
-Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.
-Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors.
-Not identifying themselves to authors.
-Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
-Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which can view as guidance.