The Editorial Manager checks the article’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Researcher Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the article is not assessed at this point.
The Editorial Board checks that the article is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the article may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
The article send to one of the editorial board members who are specialized in the topic of the research, to clarify his initial opinion regarding the appropriate of the research for publication or not and nominate three reviewers if he found that the article meets the criteria for publication in the journal.
The reviewer sets time aside to read the article several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the article without further work. Otherwise, they will read the article several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
The Editorial Manager considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
The Editorial Manager sends a decision email to the researcher including any relevant reviewer comments. The reviewer’s name is anonymous to the researcher (s).
The researcher should do the changes that asked by the reviewer to do, and should highlight these changes in red or yellow shadow.
Researchers must review their papers in light of the evaluators’ comments and return them to the journal within 10 days of receiving them.
If accepted, the article sends to page designer then to the publisher.