Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All the articles are peer reviewed through a double-blinded process. Once a manuscript is submitted, if it falls within the scope of the journal, the editor assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers are selected considering their expertise and the subject area of the article. The peer review process takes 1 month – 2 months approximately. When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the manuscript and notifies the author one of the following:

  • accepted as received
  • accepted after satisfactory completion of minor amendments
  • reconsider after major revision
  • rejected

If revisions are needed, the authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes suggested by the reviewers and submit the revised manuscript during the stipulated time period. Once the revised manuscript is received, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptability for publication and notifies the author.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:

  • Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
  • Structure and argument: Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
  • Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
  • Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?
  • Language: Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.
  • Data availability: Has data used in the study been adequately described and made available? Is the data curated in a usable format? Is there a 'Data Availability' statement providing information on how to access the data?

Section Policies

Letter to the Editor

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Research Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Case Reports

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Brief Reports

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Review article

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links