Receiving a manuscript does not imply an obligation to publish it. The Editor-in-chief decides on which papers are suitable for publication. The decision is based on a blind peer-review system in which at least two experts working on the topic of the paper submitted should recommend publication.

After receiving the manuscript, it will be sent to both experts for review. They have to assess whether it meets the criteria for publication. They should also recommend revisions for improvement of the paper (max 10 days).

Considering the assessments of the experts, the Editor-in-Chief decides on the publication, which may be:

• Accept the paper unchanged;
• Accept the paper with minor revisions;
• Accept the paper after major modifications are made;
• Reject the paper for publication.

If major modifications are recommended, the paper will be sent for second-round review by the same evaluators.

An overview of peer review

Peer review exists to make sure journals publish high-quality research. The entire scientific community gains from this.

Because their manuscripts may be rejected, scientists may find the peer review process scary. Revisions and improvements are important parts of the publishing process because they boost your manuscript's quality.

Peer review is a procedure

Peer review is a crucial component of scientific publication that verifies the accuracy of the research presented. Peer reviewers are subject matter experts who donate their time to aiding the journal papers they evaluate—they give writers free counsel.

Durable Peer reviewers could highlight areas in your manuscript that need more justification or experiments.

Less complicated to read: If readers find parts of your document challenging to grasp, you can fix them.

Peer reviewers consider how influential your paper is to other experts in your field. 

Editorial rejection

Your journal submission might be turned down if:

• The paper is improperly structured and does not provide enough information for readers to properly comprehend the authors' analysis
• The paper has no novel scientific findings.
• The paper does not make it apparent how much of the research is new science and how much is already known.
• The paper is outdated; references are absent.
• The paper contains conclusions or beliefs that are not fully supported by the evidence, arguments, and information.
• The paper does not include sufficient information about the tools and procedures to enable other scientists to experiment.

• The paper lacks precise explanations or descriptions of:

-Testing of hypotheses

-The plan of the experiment

-Description statistics and sample characteristics

-Contains a flawed statistical analysis or an inadequate study design.

-The paper has bad linguistic quality. 

Revising

When making changes to your manuscript and answering critiques from peers:

• Address each issue that the editor and reviewers brought up.
• In your return letter, go into detail about the changes made to your manuscript.
• Carry out any extra research or evaluations that the reviewers recommend (unless you feel that they would not make your paper better; if this is the case, explain why in your response letter).
• If there are any ideas or statements that you disagree with, respond politely and scientifically.
• In your letter, make a distinction between the reviewers' remarks and your responses.
• Show off the significant changes in the text by highlighting them, changing the text's color, or using Microsoft Word's Track Changes tool.
• Within the time frame specified by the editor, send back the corrected manuscript and the answer letter.