When the submitted articles arrived to the journal, one of the Editors read each manuscript. Editors have to make first decision very quickly. We aim to make the first decision on all manuscripts within one or two weeks after submission. During the first decision, the journal editors mainly check whether the manuscript is consistent with the scope and objectives of the journal and the minimum acceptable quality, whether the manuscript complies with journal instructions for the authors. The editor decides whether to send it for a full review. If a paper is rejected without external review, authors are notified electronically on decision time by email. We retain copies of rejected manuscripts for three months, after which we delete them from our system.

Only after passing the initial screening, the manuscript is sent for double-blind review. At least two peer-reviewers are selected for the peer-review process. Names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other. We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should contain constructive analysis for authors, especially where revision is recommended. If reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to confidential comments for the editor.

While expectations vary by discipline, some key aspects that should be evaluated by reviewers may include:
Are the research questions valid?
Is the sample size sufficient?
Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
Are the study design and methods appropriate to answer the research question?
Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that the research might be reproduced?
Are statistical tests appropriate and correctly reported?
Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed and have those results been compared to the current results?
Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the authors’ own articles?
Do the results support the conclusions?
Are limitations of the research acknowledged?
Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
Is the language clear and understandable?

We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work.

We ask authors to declare potential conflicts of interest any of the reviewers. The final decision concerning the manuscript is made during the regular Editorial meeting. All the evaluation reports from the reviewers are reviewed and the final decision is reached on the base of originality, quality, importance, scientific merit and ethical issues of the article. All authors are asked to submit any conflict of interest, to complete and sign the Copyright Release Form. We send reviewers’ comments to authors, regardless of whether we accept the article or not.