EJZ follows highly respected and toughest Double Blinded Peer-Review System; especially that of the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). The authors should provide the first and last names of three suggested reviewers in addition to their specialty, current affiliations, and e-mail addresses. Qualified and eligible reviewers include other researchers in the field of the study who are not in the direct or indirect conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript (such as your Faculty colleague, co-authors in other papers, thesis supervisors, family members…etc.). The authors should also consider naming international reviewers on the list. The authors are invited to suggest reviewers who are competent to examine their manuscript, but the editor is not limited to such suggestions. Reviewers are informed that they have received privileged documents for assessment of scientific merit and are expected to provide reasonable arguments to support their evaluations.
Manuscripts may be rejected without peer review by the editor-in-chief if they do not comply with the instructions for authors, or if they are beyond the aim and scope of the journal. This fast rejection process means that the authors are given a quick decision and do not need to wait for the review process. Each manuscript will be sent to at least two qualified, independent, external reviewers in the field of the study. If there are inconsistencies between the reviewers, a third reviewer will be asked to review the manuscript. Based on the feedback from the reviewers and the editors’ judgment a decision is given on the manuscript. The average time from submission to first decision is four weeks. The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online Manuscript Tracking System as indicated by the following flowchart:
Notes:
Every manuscript passed the initial review step is sent to an appropriate editor based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the editors. All manuscripts shall be handled by an editor who does not have any potential conflict of interest with any of the manuscript’s authors.
Each manuscript will be sent to, at least, two external reviewers by the editor. The editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal.
The original reviewers maybe asked to review again the revised manuscripts, especially in case of a major revision.
Every June volume of the journal has an acknowledgment page for the researchers who have performed the peer-review process for one or more of the journal manuscripts in the past year. Without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.
The ultimate responsibility for any decision lies with the editor-in-chief, to whom any appeals against rejection should be addressed.
Top