Peer-review

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

The double-blind peer review is a process used by the Journal to ensure impartial and unbiased evaluation of submitted articles. In this system, both the authors and the Reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This approach prevents any bias based on the Authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, or reputation, and focuses purely on the merit of the research.

 

Steps in the Double-Blind Peer Review

1. Article Submission

The process begins when the Author uploads his/her article through the Journal’s website, following the provided guidelines [link to Submission Preparation Checklist] and ensuring that identifying information (such as names and affiliations) is removed from the file.

2. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

After submission, the Editor-in Chief and the Editorial Board conduct an initial review to assess whether the manuscript meets basic journal requirements. This includes checking for format adherence, the scope of the journal, and compliance with ethical standards [link to Ethic statements].

At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board also evaluate the article’s relevance, quality, and novelty.

3. Desk Reject

If the Editor-in-Chief determines that the manuscript does not meet the Journal’s standards or is out of scope, it may be rejected without external peer review (desk reject). Common reasons for desk rejection include:

• The topic falls outside the journal’s focus;
• The study is not novel or lacks scientific rigor;
• Poor writing or significant methodological flaws.

Desk rejection happens early in the process, allowing Authors to quickly submit their work to a more appropriate venue.

4. Assignment to Peer Reviewers

Once the preliminary evaluation is passed, the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board assign the article to two Peer Reviewers who are experts in the field. In the double-blind process, both Author and reviewers are anonymous to each other and Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript.

Reviewers are asked to critically evaluate the manuscript’s methodology, contribution to the field, literature review, results, and conclusions.

 

5. Reviewer Reports

The Reviewers complete an evaluation form based on the following parameters: (i) Relevance of the contribution; (ii) Knowledge of the field of study; (iii) Originality of the approach; (iv) Significance of the results; (v) Overall assessment; (vi) Reviewer’s expertise on the subject. They also provide an analytical opinion on the article, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. At the end of the evaluation, each reviewer provides his/her judgment:

• Accept as is: The article is ready for publication with no revisions.
• Minor revisions: The article requires minor adjustments before acceptance.
• Major revisions: The article requires substantial changes, despite its potential scientific validity.
• Reject: The article has serious and irreparable shortcomings in theoretical or methodological aspects, or it does not provide any original contribution to the field of knowledge.

In case of disagreement between the two Reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the evaluation of the contribution to a Third Reviewer to obtain an additional opinion and ensure a broader perspective.

6. Editorial Decision

Based on the Reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in Chief and the Editorial Board decide whether to:

• Accept the paper;
• Request revisions and resubmission (either minor or major revisions);
• Reject the paper based on the Reviewers’ feedback.

7. Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are requested, the Author submits a revised version of the article addressing the Reviewers’ comments. In case of major revisions, the revised article goes through an additional round of peer review.

8. Final Decision

At the end of the review process, the Editor-in Chief makes the final decision regarding each article, which may result in acceptance, further revisions, or rejection of the proposal.