The technical and scientific merits of manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal are evaluated by an anonymous peer-review process.
An Associate Editor, whose field of expertise is most closely aligned with the main topic of a given manuscript, manages the review process. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable in form or content by the Associate Editors will be returned to the authors without review.
Usually three reviewers, with expertise in the field in question, are asked to evaluate the manuscript. Publication recommendations, based on the reviewers' comments and the Associate Editor's judgment, are returned to the corresponding author with instructions on the course of action to follow.
General questions with regard to the peer-review process should be addressed to the Editor.
Prompt response by potential reviewers to a request for a manuscript review is a key component in the timeliness of the review process. Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript are usually given 4 to 6 weeks to return their reviews.
Reviewers who anticipate having difficulty meeting this timeline or who find that the paper topic is inappropriate to their expertise are urged to contact the Associate Editor as soon as possible. Suggestions of alternate reviewers are always welcome.
Reviews must focus on the technical content of the manuscript and provide comments as specific and constructive as circumstances permit. Reviewers are not surrogate proof-readers, they rate the quality of the writing without editing it.
The reviewers' recommendations regarding the suitability of a manuscript for publication may include:
- Accept pending suitable changes or corrections.
- Change paper category: article or technical communication
- Revise and resubmit.
- Reject, do not reconsider.
- More suitable for another publication.
When preparing revised manuscripts, authors must compile a detailed response to each review comment or suggestion. This compilation must be submitted as a separate document along with the revised manuscript to avoid delaying and prolonging the review process.