Editorial
Submission & Review Tracking System
Powered by Scholars Central

Volunteer reviewers who wish to commit themselves to achieve timely reviews are welcome to send an e-mail with some information about their domain of expertise to the Editor. As you know, the quality of published papers only depends on the peer reviewing system, and most of our current reviewers are regularly overloaded with reviews

Author Login

Editor Login

Reviewer Login

Publisher Login

Forgot your Password ?

Welcome to Submission and Review Tracking System® Authors are welcome to submit their work directly here, as no other submission method will be accepted from now on. Please read the guidelines for authors before submitting your work.

* Authors: Submit a paper and check the status of article in the tracking system. Submit a revised version of an already-submitted paper through the tracking system. Track the status of your submitted article with the assigned paper id.
* Reviewers: Enter your reviews, comments, and recommendation(s) for the paper(s) you have accepted to review. Reviewers receive login details to their e-mail id.
* Action editors: Manage the review process of the papers that have been assigned. Editors receive login details to their e-mail id once they assigned as an editor to the article. Please contact editorial office by email, if you miss the user id/password to login.

Below, you will find some Submission Instructions, a brief description of the Review Process, and how we would like to actually work.

  • Before considering submitting your work to , please read the guidelines for authors.
  • The precise format description for all types of papers is available on Journal Web site.
  • Remember that, though we accept any (easily printable!) format for submissions, the final versions of all papers have to be provided in Word format.
Review process- What happens after a paper has been submitted?
  • First, the Editor-in-Chief sends it to Section Editor (most likely one of the Associate Editors if they are not too busy).
  • The Section Editor finds at least 3 independent reviewers. Most likely again, one of them is a member of the Editorial Board
  • When all reviewers have entered their review in the system, the Section Editor can either make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviews and his/her own opinion, or start a discussion among the reviewers if there is some disagreement.
  • After an agreed decision has been reached, the authors are notified by the Editor-in-Chief or the section Editor.
  • The possible decisions are
    - The paper is accepted and it can be published as it is (except for some typos).
Accept with minor revisions: the paper will have to be slightly revised following the reviewers' comments, but there will not be any additional round of review, only the section Editor and/or the Editor-in-Chief will check the modifications.
Revise and resubmit: it is agreed that the topic is worth publishing, but the paper requires large revisions before it can actually be published. The revised paper will not be considered as a completely new submission, though: if a revised version is sent within 3 months, it will most probably be handled by the same section Editor.
Reject the paper is out of scope, or does not contain any significant contribution, or may be simply too difficult to understand. In any case, the same work should not be resubmitted without a very large amount of work.

* Last but not least, it is our goal that the whole review process does not take more than 4 months before the decision is sent to the authors.

Do not hesitate to send your comments and suggestions about this site; we know there is room for improvement

Your Ip Address: 3.227.254.12