The submissions are reviewed by editorial board members as well as external experts. Reviewers recommended by the author may be included. Yet, they cannot pertain to the author’s family, belong to the same institution, or be their current collaborators.

The author’s identity is disclosed to the reviewer. The reviewers are free to reveal their identity to the author or keep anonymity. The process includes several stages:

  1. Fast check: editor-in-chief assesses submitted proposal.
  2. Editor-in-chief sends proposals to reviewers.
  3. Editors assess reviews/ answers/ enhancements.

Review guidelines

The reviewers may recommend “acceptance”, “acceptance if revised to address the reviewers’ concerns” or “no acceptance”. In any case, they are asked to provide constructive critiques and detailed suggestions for improvement, considering the following questions:

  • Is the submission title adequate and appealing?
  • Does the abstract summarise how the work contributes to the advancement of knowledge?
  • Is the information well structured?
  • Is the writing clear to any reader?
  • Is the research subject well framed?
  • Is the argument well supported with bibliographic references? Are these adequate and sufficient?
  • Can the submission be further enhanced with video, audio, code, links or demonstrations?
  • Are credits and copyrights displayed appropriately?
  • Are captions sufficiently descriptive?
  • Do citations, references and notes follow the provided instructions?

Complaints and appeals

Complaints and appeals should be sent to the journal direction. They will be discussed by the editors and the members of the board.