All the Scienceline Journals are Gold Open Access that provides immediate open access to the content (articles) published in the journal, on the principle that making research freely available on the Internet to support a greater global exchange of knowledge. The term "Gold Open Access" refers to open access journals of both large and small publishers that are financed via author fees (APC - Article Processing Charges).

The standard fee for making your article Open Access in Scienceline Journals is EUR €150 for each article accepted (unless stated otherwise under the "Submitting articles" tab on the journal's home page).

How does the process work?

If you aim to publish your work via the gold open access option, you are welcome to submit your article to the Scienceline journal of your choice in the normal way. When your article has been accepted for publication you will be asked to pay the APC via a payment method: either by credit card, or by invoice to your institution or research funder with their permission.

Does Scienceline Support Institutional Funding for APCs?

Please contact us if you are interested in discussing institutional payment models for article processing charges (APCs) for members of your organization.

What are my Open Access Licensing options?

Scienceline gives authors of open access articles the option to choose from two Creative Commons licenses in order to enable the open publication of their articles:

CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

According to the Creative Commons website: "This license CC BY, lets other distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials."

The authors are required to grant Scienceline Journals an exclusive license for open access publication of their article with a Creative Commons attribution license (CC BY; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, share, distribution, and reproduction in any platform and medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.

CC BY-NC: Creation Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License 4.0

According to the Creative Commons website: "This license is the restrictive of the CC licenses, allowing others to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, remix, transform, and build upon the material, but they can't change them in any way or use them commercially." The content published by Scienceline Journals (from 2011 to 2017) is often licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Please note that all authors whose research work is funded by Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Wellcome Trust must select the CC BY license in accordance with those funder mandates effective from 1 April 2013. Other funders will have their specific policies. Please check the requirements of your own research funder before selecting a license: licenses cannot be changed after publication.

If you post your article on any website or repository, acknowledgement in the form of a full citation should be given to the journal as the original source of publications, together with a link to the journal webpage and/or DOI as soon as they are available. Such information will help in getting the work cited.

What is Open Access?

Open Access (OA), simply means publications are freely available online to all at no cost and with limited restrictions with regards reuse.

It is definitely not vanity publishing or self-publishing, nor about the literature that scholars might normally expect to be paid for, such as books for which they hope to earn royalty payments. It concerns the outputs that scholars normally give away free to be published – peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers and datasets of various kinds."

The unrestricted distribution of study results is especially important for authors (as their work gets seen by more people), readers (as they can access and build on the most recent work in the field) and funders (as the work they fund has broader impact by being able to reach a wider audience).

An overview of fully OA journals can be found in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The formal definitions of Open Access are the Budapest (2002), Bethesda (2003) and Berlin (2003) definitions and they are usually referred to as a consolidated 'BBB definition'.

There are two forms to open access: Gold OA and Green OA

Gold OA makes a published work freely and permanently accessible for everyone, immediately after copyright and permission is retained by the authors. Both Fully OA and hybrid (subscription-based journal) journals publish articles per Gold OA that allows the re-use of the work as long as the authors are acknowledged and cited as they retain the copyright.

Green OA, also referred to as self-archiving, is the practice of placing a version of an author’s manuscript into a repository, making it freely accessible for everyone. The version that can be deposited into a repository is dependent on the funder or publisher. Unlike Gold OA the copyright for these articles usually sits with the publisher of, or the society affiliated with, the title and there are restrictions as to how the work can be reused. There are individual self-archiving policies by journal or publisher that determine the terms and conditions e.g. which article version may be used and when the article can be made openly accessible in the repository (also called an embargo period). A list of publishers’ self-archiving policies can be found on the SHERPA/RoMEO database.

Benefits of Gold Open Access

• Greater visibility and impact: A broader distribution and increased visibility and citation of articles when are freely and permanently available online immediately upon publication than subscription content (restricted access);
  
• Content published under a Creative Commons licence can be archived anywhere and allow authors to easily comply with funder requirements;
  
• Retention of copyright by authors;
• Moves research along faster and the paper can be carried out and published quicker. This is especially important in time sensitive fields and topics (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic);
  
• Greater public engagement especially when content affects the general public (e.g. patient groups);
• Better management and assessment of research
• Provides the material on which the new semantic web tools for data-mining and text-mining can work, generating new knowledge from existing findings;
• Incorporates local research into interoperable network of global knowledge;
• Increases impact of local research, providing new contacts and research partnerships for authors;
• Removes professional isolation;
• And can support the development of indigenous and science-based knowledge
  

Appealing the Editorial Decision

Submissions may be rejected without external review with a very general statement of the rejection decision. Generally, these decisions are not qualified for a formal appeal. However, authors who believe that their submission was rejected due to a misunderstanding or the decision was not in accordance with journal policy and procedures, may appeal the decision by sending the editor a comprehensive detailed response to the issues raised in the rejection letter (and not to justify the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal).
The editor-in-chief (EiC) and editors will consider the appeal without giving any guarantee to accept the manuscript and thereafter if the Editor’s decision following the editorial criteria is rejection of the article, it will be deemed final.
In case of any dissatisfaction with the way the editors has handled the authors appeal, they may refer complaints to email of the journal EiC concerned, or they may contact the publisher at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Appealing Corrective Action taken Post Publication

In case a published article is the subject of a complaint, the editor will decide on the retraction of the published article, other corrective actions, or notices on the published article. The decision will be in line with the guideline published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including COPE’s retraction guidelines and in consultation with the publisher.
SCIENCELINE and its journals reserve the right to take corrective actions to maintain a transparent and accurate academic record.

General Concerns and Making A Complaint

Complaints related to content, procedures, or policies of Scienceline Publication or our editorial staff, may provide an opportunity and will definitely help us to improve the standard of our services. Anybody wishing to raise a concern or make a complaint about any aspect of publication in a Scienceline journal may email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Our editors will respond quickly, courteously, and constructively to any complaint according to the following procedure.

• In the case that the initial response is felt to be insufficient, the complainant can request to escalate their complaint to a more senior member of the team.
• If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints may be escalated to the journal's EiC, for a final decision.
• If a complainant remains unhappy after what EiC considers a definitive reply, the complainant may complain to an external party with a relevant oversight.

Complaints sent to the publisher will usually be referred to the EiC of the journal of choice.

Handling Complaints and Appeals

The following principles and processes will be considered:

• Speed: All complaints will be formally acknowledged within two working days and processed as quickly as possible. We will then lead the investigation following COPE guidelines to make sure that the correct procedures have been followed or the author’s concerns have been addressed fairly and without prejudice by reviewing the paper’s peer review history and any correspondence between the author, editor, and reviewers. We may also contact the parties involved to obtain further information where necessary and in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . Some complaints may be complex and take time to resolve fairly (for example, allowing a reasonable time for multiple parties to respond). So, we will try to resolve issues as swiftly as possible within two weeks. The final decision will be acknowledged to the author in writing.

• Fairness: We will try to treat all parties involved in a complaint fairly and avoid bias either in the process or outcome. We will avoid conflicts of interest.

• Confidentiality: We will only disclose information necessary to resolve a complaint in accordance with GDP regulations  .

• Clarity: We will seek to be clear in all our communication, and consider the needs of those we are communicating with. In the interest of allowing due process to take place, and investigations to proceed without prejudice, we respectfully request that anyone raising a concern or complaint allow the process to conclude before publicly commenting on the case. If the author wishes to pursue their complaint further, they may contact COPE directly. Information can be found on the COPE website:  Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics .

Related links

• Publishing Ethics

• Authorship and Authors' Responsibilities

• Peer review Process

• Policies

• Open Access 

Authorship Author is the one who has made a substantive intellectual contribution to a paper (for example, to the research question, design, analysis, interpretation, and written description) and also understands his/her role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published. Authorship is a way of making explicit both credit and responsibility for the contents of published articles. Credit and responsibility are inseparable. The guiding principle for authorship decisions is to present an honest account of what took place. Criteria for authorship apply to all intellectual products, including print and electronic publications of words, data, and images. Journals should make their policies on authorship transparent and accessible (https://wame.org/authorship ). Authorship has important academic, social, and financial consequences which implies responsibility and accountability for the published work. Since authorship does not normally communicate what contributions make an individual qualified to be an author. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy, as well as a policy that identifies who is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole. Such policies remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions but leave unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify an individual for authorship. Scienceline Publication has thus developed criteria for authorship that can be used by Scienceline journals, including those that distinguish authors from other contributors.

Criteria for Authorship The author is the only one who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the manuscript. Collaborations like technical services, translation, preparation of patients for the study, supplying materials, funding, or facility administrative oversight where the work was done are not, in themselves, sufficient for authorship; however, these contributions may be acknowledged in the manuscript. One author (a “guarantor”) should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole. It is often the corresponding author who submits the manuscript and receives reviews although other authors can play this role. All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript. It is preferable that all authors be familiar with all aspects of the work. However, modern research is often done in teams with complementary expertise so every author may not be equally familiar with all aspects of the work. Therefore, some authors’ contributions may be limited to specific aspects of the work as a whole.

Number and Order of Authors Editors should not arbitrarily limit the number of authors. There are legitimate reasons for multiple authors in some kinds of research, such as multi-center, randomized controlled trials. In these situations, a subset of authors may be listed with the title, with the notation that they have prepared the manuscript on behalf of all contributors, who are then listed in an appendix to the published article. Alternatively, a “corporate” author (e.g., a “Group” name) representing all authors in a named study may be listed, as long as one investigator takes responsibility for the work as a whole. In either case, all individuals listed as authors should meet the criteria for authorship whether or not they are listed explicitly on the byline. If editors believe the number of authors is unusually large, relative to the scope and complexity of the work, they can ask for a detailed description of each author’s contributions to the work. If some do not meet the criteria for authorship, editors can ask for the removal of their names as a condition of publication. The authors themselves should decide the order in which authors are listed in an article. No one else knows as well as they do their respective contributions and the agreements they have made among themselves. Many different criteria are used to decide the order of authorship. Among these are relative contributions to the work and, in situations where all authors have contributed equally, alphabetical or random order. Readers cannot know, and should not assume, the meaning of the order of authorship unless the approach to assigning order has been described by the authors. Authors may want to include with their manuscript a description of how the order was decided. If so, editors should welcome this information and publish it with the manuscript.

Retained Author's Rights and Obligations All authors who publish their research papers in Scienceline journals are entitled to the following rights and obligations: Authors hold full copyright and self-archiving rights, they transfer the publishing rights to Scienceline Publication We do decline to publish material where a pre-print or working paper has been previously mounted online. We do not allow authors to use Artificial intelligence (AIs) such as ChatGPT to produce papers. A machine tool cannot be an author of a research or even review papers, textbooks or book chapters. Scienceline have a zero tolerance policy on content generated or altered (paraphrased plagiarism) by AIs. Scienceline editors use GPTZero (AI Detector) built by Princeton University student Edward Tian (https://gptzero.me/), and if role of a ChatGPT is detected, the article will be immediately rejected. For more information about Authors' Responsibilities on AIs, please visit WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications. We allow authors to get their seminar papers published with a note about the seminar if the paper is not mounted online. The research and review papers published in Scienceline Publication can be archived in any private or public archives online or offline. For this purpose, authors need to use the final published papers downloaded from the Website Authors are allowed to archive their article in open access repositories as “post-prints”. (Please note that: a post-print is the version incorporating changes and modifications resulting from peer-review comments.) The authors need to acknowledge the original reference to the published paper when used in some other format like ePub or audio files. Scienceline journals offers Creative Commons attribution license (CC BY; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 )  to researchers and scholar who uses the content of the published papers. Authors are free to use a link to our published papers and share the published papers online or offline in the final format printed on the Journal website. Authors can index and store the published papers in private or public archives or repositories like university database, internet archives, academia, researchgate etc. We promote sharing of knowledge with due credit to the authors and researchers of the papers published with Scienceline Publication.

Authorship Changes, Disputes, and Agreement After the manuscript is submitted or accepted for publication, the corresponding author is required to send a request through the signed change of authorship form to add or remove an author or to rearrange the author names of the submitted/accepted manuscript. All the authors should approve any change in authorship (i.e., adding, removing or reordering existing authors) after initial submission. Authors should determine the order of authorship among themselves. In addition, any alterations must be clarified to the Editor/Editor-in-chief via the AAF - Authorship Agreement Form (for example: see AAF for JLSB). Disputes about authorship are best settled at the local level before the journal reviews the manuscript. However, at their discretion, editors may become involved in resolving authorship disputes. Changes in authorship at any stage of manuscript review, revision, or acceptance should be accompanied by a written request and explanation from all of the original authors. In this case, the Editor also asks the authors for a filled-out and signed Authorship Agreement Form (for example, JLSB-AAF). In order to disseminate the authors’ research work, the publishers need publishing rights. For open access articles, the publisher uses an exclusive licensing agreement in which authors retain copyright in their manuscripts.

Reporting Standards Authors of original research should present their study and its data accurately as well as discussing the results and significance of the work, so that sufficient detail and references permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

Data Access and Retention Authors should provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Also, they should provide public access to such data, for a reasonable number of years after publication. Authors may refer to their journal’s Guide for Authors for further details.

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources The authors should write entirely original works, but in case the authors have used others' work and words, they should ensure that this has been appropriately cited or that permission has been obtained as well as a proper acknowledgment of the work of others. Authors should cite the most influenced publications. Conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, is allowed only if permission has been obtained from the source. Plagiarism takes many forms, and in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. Generally, an author should not submit a previously published paper for consideration in another journal, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint, clinical guidelines, and translations. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found in the ICMJE Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: http://www.icmje.org/ ].

Confidentiality Information obtained during confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant requests, should not be used without the express written permission of the author.

Human and Animal Subjects and Possible Hazards The author must clearly explain and present any unusual hazards like chemicals, procedures or equipment in the manuscript, if any. For the use of animal or human subjects, the author should state "performing the procedures in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines" in the manuscript so that it shows the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. For human subjects, authors should state: "informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects" in the manuscript. The author should also ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans [World Medical Association (WMA) Helsinki Declaration for Medical Research in Human Subject ]. All animal experiments should comply with the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines  and should be carried out in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 , or EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes , or the U.S. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and, as applicable, the Animal Welfare Act . Appropriate consents, permissions and releases must be obtained where an author wishes to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and any other individuals in a publication.

User License Agreement Scienceline Publication provides access to archived material through Scienceline Publication Repository (eprints), which supports Open Archives Initiative (OAI 2.0) with a base URL of http://eprints.science-line.com/cgi/oai2?verb=Identify. All articles published open access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. Permitted reuse is defined by Creative Commons user license called "Creative Common Attribution" (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, share, distribution, and reproduction in any platform and medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.

Conflict of Interest Authors are requested to evident whether impending conflicts do or do not exist by signing conflict of interest disclosure form (Scienceline journals prefer to use the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form available here: http://www.icmje.org/downloads/coi_disclosure.docx ). WAME define conflict of interest as “a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities, such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests” [WAME Editorial statement on COI ]. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work. All sources of financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article should be disclosed, as should the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage [WAME Editorial statement on COI ].

Related links

• Publishing Ethics

• Peer review Process

• Appeals and Complaints

• Policies

• Open Access 

Scienceline Publication ensures some policies for authors about the publication and distribution of an article. The author, should be aware of policies before the submission of an article. Please read the following policies about Copyright, Article Sharing, Article Withdrawal, Article Retraction, Article Removal and Article Replacement.

Copyright
The authors sign a copyright declaration form with Scienceline Publication thereby rendering publication and distribution rights. By this agreement, they also retain significant rights to use and share their own published article. All the publisher and authors' rights are mentioned in the form. Scienceline Publication retains unlimited rights to publish and distribute the published article by this agreement. The copyright declaration transfer form covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprint, translation, photographic reproduction, microform, electronic form (online, offline), or any other reproduction of similar nature.

Article sharing
When a paper is published, it will be shared on several platforms that are the most important ones and help the author get more citations, audience, visibility, and reputation and thus promotes the author in his professional career. The following ways will also help the author(s) to promote their work after publication. The author(s) may:

• consider search engine optimization and keywords to help readers to discover your article.
• share the paper on press and social media. A sharing option is available on every page of published articles.
• share the article on your personal website or blog.
• share the article on any indexing database or institutional repository. 

Open access agreement
All the Scienceline Journals are Gold Open Access and provide immediate open access to the content (articles) published in the journal, on the principle that making research freely available on the Internet to support a greater global exchange of knowledge. The term "Gold Open Access" refers to open access journals of both large and small publishers that are financed via author fees (APC - Article Processing Charges). The authors are also required to grant Scienceline Journals an exclusive license for open access publication of their article with a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, share, distribution, and reproduction in any platform and medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. In particular, although the website indicates CC BY licensing and copyright remains with authors, articles clearly note copyright is held by the publisher.. For more information about Open Access kindly visit here.

Withdrawal, retraction, removal or replacement of a published article
Scienceline Publication understands the importance of completeness of the scholarly record for researchers and librarians and gives the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. In very occasional cases, it comes necessary to withdraw, retract, remove or replace a published article. Such cases are not taken very lightly. Scienceline Publication follows some strict specific rules and policies mentioned below:

Article withdrawal
After submission, when the author(s) needs to withdraw their article(s) due to some reasons, the journal editor investigates the matter, the step of the peer-review process, and the reason for withdrawal. All the withdrawal requests within ONE week of submission will be accepted and the manuscript will be deleted from the journal database. In case the author(s) are paid the APC but demands withdrawal of articles in Press (those have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information), the manuscript may be withdrawn from our database but the publication fee will not be refunded. The withdrawal requests because of simultaneous submissions to other journals especially when the article is under peer-review process, will not be accepted. After the peer-reviewing step, the editor processes the withdrawal after investigating the matter. In case of multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, duplication, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, or the like that are determined to violate Scienceline journal publishing ethics guidelines, the article may also be withdrawn from our database. It means that the article content (HTML, XML, and PDF) is removed and replaced with a statement (the article has been withdrawn according to the Scienceline Policy on Article in Press Withdrawal) with a link to the current policy document.

Article retraction
In case of infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, duplication, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like that are determined to violate Scienceline journal publishing ethics guideline, a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication. Scienceline Publication Company will consider retracting a publication if:

• It has clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error);
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission, or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication);
• It constitutes plagiarism;
• It reports unethical research.

The following standards for dealing with retractions are adopted based on a number of library and scholarly bodies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors:

• A retraction note signed by both authors and editor is published in the specific part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list;
• A link is made to the original published article to help the reader see both the retraction note and the article itself;
• A titled “retracted” watermark on the .pdf is added on each page without any change to the original article;
• The HTML, XML, and ePrint version of the document is removed.
   

Article removal (because of legal limitations)
In a limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove an article from the online database so that the "Title and Authors" will be retained, and only the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons. This will only occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or we have good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk.

Article replacement
In case, where an article might pose a serious health risk, the author(s) can replace theır article(s) with a correct version. In this case, we will post a notice with a link to the corrected re-published article (plus a history of the document if necessary).

Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards Review Policy and all manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review.

Type of Peer Review
Policy employs double-blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

How the referee is selected
Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated.

Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: - Is original - Is methodologically sound - Follows appropriate ethical guidelines - Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions - Correctly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.

How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. Should the referee's reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually include verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

Editor's Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Self-archiving Policies

Privacy Policy