Information For Authors

How the review process works

The journal relies on a double-blind peer-review process. Paper submissions are taken into consideration by the Editors-in-chief, who decide whether the proposal should be rejected ex officio (in the case of obvious misconduct, or if the proposal’s topic is incompatible with the journal's scientific objectives), or accepted for the review process. In the latter case, the Editors-in-chief are supported by the Editorial board throughout the review process, which includes the following steps: selecting and appointing two reviewers for each contribution, mediating between the reviewers and the authors while preserving their anonymity, and taking a final decision on the proposal’s publication. Should there be a strong disagreement between the two reviewers’ evaluations, the Editors-in-chief and the Editorial board may request a third party’s assessment. Contacts between the Editors-in-chief, the Editorial board, reviewers and authors take place by e-mail. The filled-in evaluation forms are managed by the Editors-in-chief, who are responsible for storing them while preserving the anonymity of both reviewers and authors. Upon request, members of the Editorial board may disclose the identity of reviewers and authors at the end of the review process only and for the sole purpose of establishing a necessary direct contact. In the event of disputes or claims, authors and reviewers should contact the Editors-in-chief and the Editorial board.