The peer-review process can be broken down into seven steps:

1. A newly submitted manuscript is subject to technical and editorial pre-checks.
2. Reviewers are invited to review the manuscript that passes the pre-checks.
3. The manuscript is reviewed by the reviewers who agree to the invitations.
4. First editorial decision is made by the Academic Editor (typically chosen from the journal’s Editorial Board, i.e., the Editors-in-Chief and expertise-relevant members of the Editorial Board) based on at least two review reports.
5. If revisions (major or minor) are necessary, the author will be requested to address the reviewers’ comments and make the corresponding revisions.
6. Previously contributing reviewers will be invited to review the revised manuscript and provide a new recommendation. More revisions will be required if the subsequent decisions lean towards the necessity for revisions.
7. The Academic Editor makes a final decision. The Editorial Office will contact the authors regarding the final decision.

Once the manuscript has passed a quality control check, it is subjected to a strict single-blinded peer review process. Before manuscripts are sent for peer review, invited reviewers are confirmed regarding their availability and conflicts of interest with the manuscript. Most manuscripts will be evaluated by 3–5 reviewers. Reviewer should spend 7–10 days to review an assigned manuscript. According to the review reported received, the Academic Editor will make an editorial decision (i.e., accept, reject, request a revision) or send it to another reviewer if needed to.

Review reports gathered during the peer review process will be made available to authors through the Editorial Manager (EM) platform in order to maintain transparency.