Submitted papers should be prepared with following templates (based on those of Elsevier)
Duration of the review process
The duration from the time the paper is submitted till the announcement of the first result varies between papers. The factors heavily affecting the length of the review process are finding qualified reviewers and the time needed for the reviewers to evaluate the paper. Our aim is to send the result back to the author within four months from the day the paper is submitted.
The Reviewing and Publishing Process
1. The reviewing and publishing process of a journal paper is initiated when an author submits his/her paper to the journal.
2. The Editor in Chief will be informed of the event. He will make the initial check. At this point, the paper will be checked for language and format compliance. If the paper is in acceptable form, based on the area of the paper, the Editor in Chief will select an appropriate editor and assign him/her to be the manuscript editor. (1 week)
3. The editor will then invite two or more reviewers to evaluate the paper. (2 weeks)
4. After accepting the review invitation, the reviewers have eight weeks for reviewing the paper. The paper is evaluated with criteria indicated in review form of the journal. Upon finishing, they will send comments to the editor through the online reviewing system. Along with comments, a recommendation is sent to the editor.Depending on quality of the paper, the recommendation is one of the following choices:
- "Accept Submission" which means the paper should be accepted as it is for publishing.
- "Minor Revision" which means the paper is conditionally accepted, some improvements are needed.
- "Major Revision" which means several parts of the paper need rewriting and the revised version will be reviewed for the second round.
- "Decline Submission" which means the paper is rejected
The review step is carried out in around 8 weeks.
5. Based on comments and recommendations of the reviewers, the editor makes the final decision on the review result. Similar to step 4, the outcome will be “Accept Submission”, “Minor Revisions”, “Major Revision”, or “Decline Submission”. The author of the paper will be informed of the result. The next step will be step 8 for “Accept Submission” papers, step 7 for “Major Revision” papers, and step 6 for “Minor Revision” papers. (1 week)
6. For “Minor Revision” papers: The author has two weeks for making changes mentioned in the comments. Along with the revised paper, the author must send a cover letter explaining what changes have been made. The paper will not be sent to reviewers again. The editor will check the revised paper and makes decision on the paper. If the revised version responds satisfactorily to the reviewers’ comments, the result will be “Accept Submission” and the next step in the process is step 8. Otherwise, further communication is needed and this step will be repeated. (3 weeks)
7. For “Major Revision” papers: The author has four weeks for revising the paper. The author will submit a revised version with a cover letter explaining what has been addressed. This version will be re-assigned to the previous reviewers for the second round. The outcome of this round will be one of following: “Accept Submission”, “Minor Revision”, or “Decline Submission”. This means a paper is considered as “Major Revision” only once. Depending on the result, the next step will be step 6 (for “Minor Revision” or step 8 for “Accept Submission”). (8 weeks)
8. The paper is accepted for publishing. It will be sent to a copy-editor. The copy-editor will check and make changes so that the paper conforms to the style required by the journal. The author will be asked for approving the changes and making any necessary changes. (2 weeks)
9. The manuscript is then typeset by a layout editor. (1 week)
10. The galley is examined by a proofreader, the author, and the layout editor. After approvals from these people are received, the paper is ready to be printed and published. (1 week)
The journal uses single blind review method, which means the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors.