Peer Review Policy

Original Research Articles, Case Reports and Review Articles are subject to peer review. Although invited articles, editorials and letters to the editor are not typically peer-reviewed, the Editor-in-Chief may solicit an external review at his discretion. The peer review process involves the following:

  • All manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to ensure that they comply with the Instructions to Authors and the Journal Policies.
  • The Editor-in Chief then screens the submission to ascertain if it complies with the Criteria for Publication (see Scope)
  • The Editor-in-Chief then assigns the manuscript to a Section Editor depending on the subject matter.
  • The Editor-in-chief or the Section Editors can at this stage advise on one of the following:
    • Reject the manuscript
    • Reject and recommend major revision prior to resubmission
    • Send out the manuscript for peer-review
  • Should the section editor recommend "Reject" or "Reject and resubmit", a brief outline of the reasons for rejection should be provided to the authors.
  • If a manuscript is deemed suitable for review by the Section Editor, a minimum of two reviewers will be appointed.
  • Reviewers will be given two weeks to respond to the request to review.
  • Reviewers are given six weeks to submit a report. At least two reports are required to make a decision.
  • The review process is double blind, that is, both authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed. To ensure a blinded review, the main body of the manuscript should not contain any identifying information, including author’s names, institutions or affiliations. Please do not include the name of the ethics committee; this information should be provided in the title page. Editorial staff may redact any information contained in the manuscript, which may compromise the blinding of the peer review process.
  • Once two reports have been received, the Section Editor will make one of the following recommendations:
    • Send out for additional peer-review (In case of conflicting peer-review reports. Please provide the name and email address of potential additional peer-reviewer/s), or
    • Reject, or
    • Major revisions required (Revised manuscript needs to be sent back to the original peer-reviewers for review and final decision), or
    • Minor revisions required (Revised manuscript can be approved by you as the Section Editor alone), or
    • Accept as is.
  • Reviewers are required to declare any conflict of interest, where applicable.
  • Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially prior to publication.
  • If reviewers recommendations diverge, the Section Editor can arbitrate the recommendation or refer the manuscript to a third reviewer.
  • Once the final decision has been reached, the Section Editor's report will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final decision, based on the section editor's synthesis, on whether to accept or reject the manuscript
  • The Section Editor Report report will also be sent to all reviewers, for them to benchmark their review and self-assess their performance.
  • The decision letter is then sent to the authors.
  • Authors are given 30 days to revise a manuscript needing minor revisions and 60 days to revise a manuscript needing major revisions. Section Editors then make a decision on minor revisions and refer major revisions back to reviewers for their recommendations before making a decision.
  • Correspondence regarding editorial decisions will be communicated to the authors by the editorial office
  • Authors can appeal a decision in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.