Reviewers

We are strongly committed to promoting the highest ethical publication practices and expect all corresponding authors to uphold the high standards of publication ethics set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any cases of ethical misconduct will be dealt with following the COPE guidelines.

● Reviewers hold the responsibility to be objective in their judgements,
● have no conflict of interest concerning the research, the authors, and/or the research funders,
● point out relevant published work which is not yet cited by the author(s) and
● treat the reviewed articles confidentially.

The Reviewer and the Authors remain anonymous throughout the “double-blind” review process.
Reviewers are selected according to their expertise in their fieldwork. Submitted papers are reviewed by at least two independent Reviewers.
The primary task of reviewers is to assist the editorial team in making editorial decisions. Reviewers are requested to evaluate whether the manuscript has already been published in another journal, is theoretically and methodologically sound, contains results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions and is the bibliography appropriate.

Reviewers judge each paper based on the following scale:
1. accept submission;
2. revisions required;
3. resubmit for review;
4. resubmit elsewhere;
5. decline submission.