For Reviewers

Reviewers receive an automated email (via, where they are asked to consider providing a review for an article that passed initial quality and plagiarism check by managing editors. The email contains the abstract, a link where the submission can be accessed ( domain) and recommendation recorded, and ends with a link to our journal website. We would like to make sure that reviewers are confident that the email was received from us and clicking on the link is safe. The link is provided for convenience, as the reviewers do not need to register and enter any password. Alternatively, reviewers can email the support contact to verify our request, and they can be given a username to log in to our website and set their own password. 

Once reviewers accessed our system, the article can be downloaded, recommendation can be written or attached as a file. Reviewers are advised to write their review separately and copy it into the window so as to not to lose it if the website becomes unresponsive. The review process is double-blind, so no author and reviewer names are disclosed. We never assign reviewers to authors working at the same institution. This policy is effective since January 2020.

Reviewers need to evaluate if every submission is scientifically sound, addresses a novel research question, and cite appropriate recent literature. They are encouraged to evaluate also writing in English and formatting. They are kindly asked to provide comments explaining how the paper can be improved; in particular, if they wish it resubmitted for another round of review. This should be the case whenever major changes are suggested. Papers are usually never accepted as submitted, some minor improvements can be always suggested. Minor revisions however do not require another round of review.