The editorial workflow of the submitted manuscripts is managed by the Editorial Office, the Editor-in-Chief, and the Associate Editors.

When a manuscript is submitted, the Editorial Office perform an initial quality check on the manuscript to ensure that it meets the minimum formatting requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines. Once the Editorial Office approve the manuscript, a notification will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief checks if the manuscript is within the journal’s remit and whether or not it is of academic merit to be considered for possible publication. Based on this, the Editor-in-Chief rejects the manuscript or assigns an Associate Editor to manage the review process.

The Associate Editor is selected by taking into account his/her research field and expertise and his/her current workload. The Associate Editor inspects the manuscript to decide either reject it right away without further refereeing (this decision of rejection is final and does not need the approval of the Editor-in-Chief) or send it to peer reviewers. The Associate Editor should assign a minimum of two peer reviewers to each manuscript and should do so within a maximum of two weeks from the time he/she has received the manuscript.

The Associate Editor should assign a minimum of two and a maximum of five peer reviewers to each manuscript The Associate Editor should assign a minimum of two peer reviewers to each manuscript

When the reviewers submit their reports, the Associate Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

 - Publish right away without change

 - Review again after minor changes (only the Associate Editor reviews the manuscript after the author updates it)

 - Review again after major changes (the reviewers have to re-review the manuscript after the author updates it)

 - Reject

If the Associate Editor recommends “Publish right away without change,” the Editor-in-Chief is notified so he/she can inspect the manuscript and the review reports. Then, the Editor-in-Chief can take his/her final decision (within one week of receiving a recommendation from the Associate Editor) and can either approve the Associate Editor’s recommendation or override it by assigning another Associate Editor for the manuscript.

If the Associate Editor recommends “Review again after minor changes,” the author is notified to prepare the revised version within two weeks. When the revised version is received, it is evaluated by the Associate Editor and the Editor-in-Chief before the final decision.

If the Associate Editor recommends “Review again after major changes,” the author is notified to revise his/her manuscript and submit the revised version within three weeks, and when the revised version is received, it is sent out to the same reviewers again to submit re-evaluation reports on it.

The editorial workflow gives the Associate Editor the authority to reject any manuscript right away at any stage without further consultation of the Editor-in-Chief.

The Associate Editor cannot assign him-/herself as a referee. This is to ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process of any manuscript submitted to the journal since at least two other experts in the field have to review the paper.