Editor Guidelines

Manuscript Scientific Services utilises AIR, online manuscript tracking system, for the entire editorial workflow. All manuscripts submitted to the journal follow the same editorial workflow outlined as followed during the peer-review process.

• First, the submitted manuscript is sent to the journal’s editorial office first to assess the quality of the manuscript and the subject relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope. If the manuscript meets both assessing criteria then the manuscript will proceed to the next stage of the editorial workflow. Otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected with no further processing.
• Then, the approved manuscript from the editorial office will be assigned to a Regional Editor who will assign a group of reviewers (2 to 5 reviewers) for peer review.
• The feedback from the individual reviewer in the group on the manuscript includes a report and the recommendation of one of the following actions to the editorial office:
• Accepted unconditionally
• Accept conditionally, subject to minor revision, according to my accompanying comments
• Reject in current form, but allow resubmission of a substantially different version, according to my accompanying comments
• Reject unconditionally because the likelihood of a successfully revision is remote
• If the Editor recommends ‘Accepted unconditionally’, then the manuscript is accepted for publication, the process terminates here.
• If the Editor recommends ‘Accept conditionally, subject to minor revision according to reviewer’s accompanying comments, the authors need to make the changes according to the comments provided from the feedback by the reviewers. Then, the corrected manuscript is reviewed by the editorial office to insure the corrections are made as requested by the reviews. This process will iterate until the editorial office is satisfied with the manuscript. The final manuscript is then accepted for publication.
• If the Editor recommends ‘Reject in current form, but allow resubmission of a substantially different version, according to reviewers’ accompanying comments’, then the manuscript in current form is not suitable for publication, and major changes must be made according to the comments provided. The revised manuscript must be submitted in a timely manner (within 6 weeks) in order for the manuscript to continue with the process. Then, the reviewed manuscript is reviewed by the reviewers once again. If the editorial office recommends ‘Reject unconditionally, because the likelihood of a successfully revision is remote’, the rejection is immediate and the process terminated here. The submitted manuscript will not be published.

The editorial office has the authority to reject any manuscript due to inappropriate subject, lack of quality or plagiarism. To ensure a fair, unbiased and high quality peer review process, the Editor decision for the publication of any manuscripts is made based on the recommendations from at least 2 reviewers and the editor himself/herself.