For Editors

Manuscript Life Cycle

1. Editorial Review and Initial Decision

Upon submission, each manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who oversees all editorial stages including:

  • Initial assessment

  • Reviewer invitation and coordination

  • Maintaining double anonymity

  • English editing and proofreading

  • Final acceptance decision

Copyediting is conducted by dedicated technical staff.

Following initial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Reject the manuscript for publication.

  2. Reject with encouragement to resubmit, pending English language revisions.

  3. Reject with encouragement to resubmit, pending improvements based on the Editor’s critique.

  4. Accept for progression to peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

  • Double-anonymized peer review is used.

  • Authors will receive reviewer feedback and a deadline for resubmission.

  • Extensions can be requested and will be granted at the Editor's discretion.

Reviewer Eligibility

Reviewers are selected based on expertise in the manuscript's subject area:

  • Preferred: Doctorate holders.

  • Minimum: Undergraduate degree in the sciences plus published or demonstrable research experience relevant to the manuscript topic.

To maintain reviewer impartiality and anonymity, the Editor verifies that:

  • The reviewer and author are not from the same institution.

  • They are not collaborating on research, grants, or business.

  • They are not relatives or close associates.

Institutional overlap is carefully evaluated.

Examples:

  • Not eligible: A reviewer and author are affiliated with labs participating in a joint project, even if based at different institutions.

  • Not eligible: A reviewer is employed at a clinical campus operated by the author's university partner.

3. Submissions by Editors

If a submission involves a conflict of interest for the Editor-in-Chief (e.g., authorship, contribution, or institutional affiliation), the Editorial Board will handle the editorial process.

4. Reviewer Feedback & Communication

  • Reviewers do not communicate with one another.

  • Feedback is sent to authors via the editorial system.

  • Authors may respond with queries; reviewers may reply, though it is not required.

  • Multiple rounds of review may occur.

Reviewer or Editor-Initiated Rejection

  • If authors repeatedly fail to revise adequately, reviewers may escalate concerns to the Editor.

  • The Editor may reject the manuscript during peer review if revisions breach ethical standards.

  • Manuscripts rejected during peer review may be resubmitted as new submissions.

5. Extensions

Extensions for revision deadlines may be requested by the authors and are granted at the discretion of the Editor.

6. Transparency and Review Material Availability

This journal follows a transparent peer review policy. Upon publication:

  • All reviewer comments and editorial decisions from every round are published in full.

  • Reviewer identities will be disclosed.

  • The original submitted manuscript will be made publicly available.

  • Reviewer responses to author queries may be included with reviewer and author consent.

  • The Editor-in-Chief will be named on the published version.