1. Upon submitting a manuscript, an auto-generated ID number of the submitted manuscript will be given to the corresponding author.
2. The manuscript undergoes an initial check to ensure that it is formatted correctly, fulfils the scope of the journal and with a plagiarism score of 30% or less.
3. A statistical and scientific sub-editor are assigned to the manuscript.
4. The sub-editors assign peer reviewers if the manuscript warrants further consideration. If the sub-editor decides not to send the manuscript for review, the Editor-in-Chief contacts the author with the decision.
5. Peer reviewers are given 14 days from acceptance to submit their reports.
6. The sub-editor will make a decision recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief based on the comments received from the peer reviewers.
7. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

Authors may monitor the status of their paper throughout the peer review process.

Peer review

Manuscripts sent for peer review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Authors may suggest independent reviewers to evaluate their manuscript, but the choice of reviewers is at the Editor’s discretion. Reviewers will not be identified to the authors. Manuscripts judged by the editors to be inappropriate are rejected without external review.

The decision an editor will make after consideration of the reviewers’ evaluations is one of the following:

1. Accept – This means the manuscript will be published by the journal and does not require any changes or modifications.
2. Minor or major revision – In this case, the authors are given an opportunity to address the referees’ concerns by submitting a revised manuscript, which is usually sent back to the original referees for re-review. When submitting a revision, the following should be uploaded to the online submission system: i) a point-by-point rebuttal letter indicating how the comments raised by the reviewers have been addressed. In the case that some comments cannot be addressed, your rebuttal letter provides you the opportunity to justify this; ii) a marked-up version of the manuscript that highlights the changes made and iii) a ‘clean’ (non-highlighted) version of the manuscript.
3. Reject – This decision is made for manuscripts which fail to meet the high standards of our journal. If the Editor-in-Chief feels that the work has potential despite its current limitations, he may express interest in seeing a future resubmission. However, if the authors decide to resubmit, the updated version of the manuscript must be submitted online as a new manuscript, with a cover letter that includes a point-by-point response to referees’ comments.