Each submission is checked by the Editor-in-Chief for compliance with the profile of the journal and technical accuracy. Manuscripts that do not fit the journal's ethics policy or do not meet the standards of the journal will be rejected before peer-review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. After the initial assessment, the submission may be handled by the Editor-in-Chief or one of the members of the Editorial Board. Following these steps, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor will determine whether the paper fits the scope of the journal and whether it is scientifically sound. Rejections at this stage are always approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
All submitted articles are subject to the double-blind peer review. In the case of regular submissions, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor will invite experts in the field, which may include the Editorial Board members. For the substantive evaluation of each submission, at least two independent reviewers are assigned. Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer. Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. The written review contains a clear referee's evaluation of the contributions and quality of the submitted manuscript.
Editorial Decisions and Revisions
Following the peer-review, the Editor-in-Chief will communicate one of the four potential decisions to the authors:
The final decision on whether the manuscript is rejected, revised, or accepted is made by Editor-in-Chief. The author is informed about each decision (rejection, minor revision, major revision, or acceptance) on an ongoing basis via e-mail.
Copy-Editing, Production, and Publication
The accepted papers will undergo copy-editing, final corrections, pagination, and, publication on the JREM website.