Review process

All Special Issues of the journal undergo a two-stage peer-review process: 1.) The first round of reviews is organized by the guest editors and changes are then being applied by the authors. Then the articles are being submitted to the journal. 2.) The second round follows through the Editorial team and at least one additional external reviewer to ensure the scientific and editorial quality of each article. All other submissions are reviewed by the editorial board and additional independent external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of research.

Before publication, the articles undergo a final copy-editing and proofreading process.

For the future, the journal aims to expand the base of external reviewers and to attract new expertise. Potential reviewers of the journal are welcome to contact the editorial team.

The procedure described and illustrated below applies to all peer-review sections of the journal to which authors can submit articles. The editorial board aims to publish high quality articles and to develop them further with the guest editors/authors during the review and editorial process. Generally, the successful publication process takes less than 8 months from submission to publication of an article. Only in exceptional cases it may take longer.

1 | Special Issue proposal preselection

All Special Issue proposals are primarily being reviewed by the editorial board (see submission). The following basic criteria must be met:

  • The proposal fits thematically within the scope and selected section of the journal.
  • The proposal has not been previously published elsewhere.
  • The call’s guidelines have been followed.
  • The proposal is coherent and clearly written (including language and grammar).

Proposals that do not meet the basic criteria are usually rejected during the Special Issue preselection process.

2 | Review

As outlined above all submissions will be reviewed by several independent external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of research. The following review criteria must be met:

  • Ethical guidelines: The guidelines of the journal are met.
  • Relevance: Content of the article fits the journal's scope and readership.
  • Research: The scientific research questions are presented clearly and understandably within the article.
  • Background: The theoretical and scientific background is presented in detail and is included in the discussion.
  • Methods: Scientific methods are described transparently.
  • Results: Results and conclusions are clearly presented and discussed in a comprehensible way.

3 | Editorial assessment

The expert opinion-based evaluation is performed by the editorial team in cooperation with the Special Issue guest editors and leads to the following options:

➟ accept for publication
➟ accept for publication with minor revision
➟ accept for publication with significant revision
➟ declined for publication

4 | Revision

The authors have the opportunity to revise the manuscript based on the reviews and editorial comments as well as to respond to questions and comments from the reviewers.

5 | Editorial decision

The editorial board can make a final decision directly or after consultation with the reviewers. An additional reviewer is consulted if the first two primary reviews contradict each other. One of the following decisions is made:

➟ accept for publication
➟ re-evaluation by the previous reviewers or a new reviewer ➟ step (2)
➟ decline for publication