The Editors-in-Chief will perform an initial appraisal of each submitted manuscript based on its fit with the focus and scope of the journal. If the submitted manuscript complies with these criteria, the Editors-in-Chief assigns it to one of the members of the Editorial Team (editors) who will perform a second appraisal of the manuscript based on the scientific merit and validity of the article and its methodology, the relevance of the article, the interest of the topic to the reader, and the presentation and understandability of the article itself.

If the submitted manuscript is suitable to be sent to a peer review, the submitted manuscript is reviewed by one to two members of the Reviewer Board of the journal who don’t have potential conflicts of interest. If editors don’t find a specific reviewer for the submitted manuscript, they will search other specialists of the topic of equal repute and based on his/her expertise and standing in his/her field. The peer-review process is single-blinded.

The reviewers will return their recommendations and reports to the editor, providing general comments to the editor and both general and specific comments to the author(s). Constructive comments that might help the authors improve their work are passed on anonymously (even if the editor does not accept the submitted manuscript). After that, the editor assesses them collectively, and then makes a decision, either on his or her own or in consultation with other editors on whether to reject the manuscript. The final decision on acceptability for publication lies with the Editors-in-Chief.

The editor will communicate the overall result of the evaluation (rejected, accepted or accepted with modifications), including the reviewer's comments. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further peer review if appropriate.