The Peer Review Process
Publication Process for Manuscripts in the Double-Blind Peer Review System
I. Editorial Check
II. Double-Blind Peer Review
III. Copyediting
IV. Typesetting
I. Editorial Check
1. The manuscript is received by the editor, and we confirm its receipt.
2. The editors check that the manuscript
I. complies with basic academic and research ethical standards;
II. fits the profile specified in the journal’s mission statement;
III. complies with the requirements outlined in the author guidelines;
IV. is properly anonymised.
If the manuscript does not meet basic academic and research ethical standards or does not fit the journal’s profile, the editorial board will return it to the author. If the manuscript is not formally adequate or not sufficiently anonymised, the editors will return it for revision. If the manuscript meets all four criteria, the editorial board will proceed to the next stage of the process.
II. Double-Blind Peer Review
1. The editorial board invites two experts to review the manuscript, who, in accordance with the journal’s ethical statement, declare that they have no institutional, professional, or personal relationship with the author that could cause a conflict of interest. They have a maximum of one month to prepare their review.
2. The reviewers choose from four suggestions: (A) the manuscript is publishable in its current state; (B) they recommend publication with minor amendments; (C) they recommend publication only after significant revision; (D) they do not recommend publication. In the case of options (B), (C), and (D), they also write a textual review and optionally add comments to the manuscript. The reviewers send their reviews to the editor.
3. The editor forwards the reviewers’ and editors’ comments to the author and either (A) requests that the text be finalised, or (B) requests that the text be revised based on the comments, or (C) informs the author that, based on the opinions of the reviewers and editors, the text will not be published, or (D) in the event of widely differing opinions, informs the author that a third anonymous reviewer will also be asked to review the manuscript.
4. If the editors request a revision of the manuscript, the author has one month to complete this, after which the process starts again from point 2.
5. If the editors request that the text be finalised, the final text – which no longer needs to be anonymised – is moved on to the next stage.
III. Copyediting
1. The text is edited by an expert copyeditor (using the ‘track changes’ function of MS Word).
2. The editor sends the copyedited version to the author for a check. Grammatical corrections are also marked, but this is for informational purposes only: with regard to grammar, the copyeditor’s corrections are final.
3. The author returns the checked, cleared manuscript without tracked changes.
IV. Typesetting
1. The text goes through typesetting.
2. The editor sends the typeset text to the author for a final check. At this stage, the aim is to remove any typesetting errors; no changes can be made to the content, but errors (such as misspelled years, etc.) can be corrected.
3. The author sends any correction requests to the editor, who forwards them to the typesetter and checks the corrections later.
4. The compiled issue is sent to press and is published on the journal’s website.
