The manuscripts will be submitted both as attachment to the email in Word format to email@example.com.
The manuscript will be immediately registered, and the registration number will be communicated at the earliest convenience to the authors, by e-mail.
Note: The authors must provide a correspondence e-mail address.
After manuscript receipt, the corresponding author will receive a short e-mail confirming the receipt which will contain the registration number, the date the manuscript was received, and the fact that the manuscript was handed out to the Section Editor (the specialized member of the Editorial Board). The Editor-in-chief or the Executive Editor will hand the manuscript to the Section Editor.
The initial responsibilities of the Section Editor consist of verifying if the manuscript complies with the editing criteria.
– If the manuscript does not comply with the criteria, the subject editor will send a short email to the corresponding author, with the request to rewrite the manuscript according to the editorial criteria.
– If there are serious errors of content and/or editing, the manuscript will be rejected ab initio by the Editor-in-chief.
– If the manuscript complies from the beginning with the editing requirements, the subject editor chooses 2 peer-reviewers (either from those already accredited by the journal or from a number of new suggestions, in which case he conveys the proposal/s in order to be sent the approval letter acknowledging the quality of official reviewer of the journal), and it is mandatory that one of them belongs to an academic site other than the authors of the manuscript.
The reviewers’ decision (approval with no changes, approval with major/minor changes, rejection) will be immediately communicated by e-mail to the corresponding author by the Section Editor.
If the manuscript gets approval with changes, the anonymous comments of the reviewers will be conveyed together with the reviewers’ decision and a statement of the Section Editor, which will be the synthesis of the reviewers’ opinions.
The corresponding author shall send the improved manuscript within 4 weeks together with a letter/Word document as attachment to an e-mail where he/she responds item by item to the comments of the reviewers (the mail is addressed to firstname.lastname@example.org), specifying the manner in which the manuscript was modified.
These documents are sent to the peer reviewers. If they are satisfied with the corresponding author’s answer, they will send the Section Editor the decision of approval for publication of the improved manuscript.
If the peer reviewers consider the corresponding author’s answer is only partially satisfactory, they will request through new item by item comments an additional review of the manuscript, the editing process following the same rules as in the case of the first revision.
If the peer reviewers consider that either on the first or the second revision, the corresponding author did not meet/or met poorly the revision requests, they will deny the approval for publication, which will be communicated to the Section Editor.
The approval for publication once taken by the reviewers, the decision will be communicated in editorial meeting (message which will immediately reach all members of the editorial board and confirm that the attached article was accepted). During this meeting, the priority of the manuscript will be established, considering the following criteria:
– reviewers’ opinions;
– no author shall have 2 articles published in the same issue (as first author);
– the degree of coverage for the different sections of the journal.