Peer review

All contributions for the sections Special Feature, Articles, Commentaries and Discussions, and Materials are entered into a two-phase peer review process. In the first round, the text is assessed by the Editors in Chief and the Managing Editor (with the possible engagement of one or more members of the Editorial Board). They decide whether the contribution is to proceed to the second round, or whether its rejection (for reasons of insufficient quality or with regard to the profile of the journal) should be proposed to the Editorial Board. This proposal can be vetoed by any member of the Editorial Board. If the proposal is vetoed, the text proceeds to the second phase of the peer review process. Otherwise, it is rejected in the first round.

In the second round, the anonymous manuscript is evaluated – usually by two reviewers. Their reviews are then submitted to the Editorial Board, which decides whether the text will be accepted for publication, returned to the author for further editing, or rejected. The meeting of the Editorial Board takes place twice a year, usually in May and November. The Managing Editor will communicate the decision of the Editorial Board to the author within the following three weeks.