Review process

All publications of the journal undergo a multi-stage double blind peer-review process to ensure the scientific and editorial quality of each article. All submissions are reviewed by the editorial board and at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of research.

For the future, the journal aims to expand the base of external reviewers and to attract new expertise. Potential reviewers of the journal can find more information at the list of reviewers.

The procedure described and illustrated below applies to all 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 authors during the review and editorial process.

1 | Article preselection

All submissions are initially reviewed by the editorial board. The following basic criteria must be met:

  • The submission fits thematically within the scope and selected section of the journal.
  • In case of submission to the "Focus" section: The submission fits the Call for Papers
  • The manuscript has not been previously published elsewhere.
  • The journal's author guidelines have been followed.
  • The article is coherent and clearly written (including language and grammar).

Articles that do not meet these basic criteria are usually rejected during the article preselection process.

2 | Review

All submissions will be reviewed by at least two 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 an comprehensible way.

Each article type has different review criteria. To ensure a transparent review process, authors can download the current criteria for each section below:

3 | Editorial assessment

The expert opinion-based evaluation is performed by the editorial team 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

Illustration of the journal's review process

Review process