• Editor-in-chief analyzes the article to see if it falls within the topics of the journal. He also follows the structure and format compliance according to the editing instructions. If these criteria are not satisfied the editor-in-chief rejects the article and informs the author about the non-compliances.
• If the article answers to these general requirements, editor-in-chief selects two referees from the editorial committee according to their area of expertise, which will receive the article for reviewing. The two referees evaluate the article in terms of relevance, novelty, originality, contributions in the field. After the evaluation of the article, the referees fill-in the reviewing form, where the conclusions are specified and also suggests for changes and comments are included. The referees may approve the article, may approve with form / essential changes, may ask for the article rewriting, or may reject the article. The referees may suggest: • the article acceptance • acceptance with form or essential changes • the article restatement • the article rejection. The filled-in reviewing form is sent to the editor-in-chief, who takes the decision for publishing/rejection and informs the author. He also requests changes / corrections according to the referees’ observations, if it is necessary. The referees identity remains unknown to the authors.
• The revised articles are sent again to the referees to analyse the corrections and to express their opinion on the article publication
• If the two evaluators have different opinions on the article publication, editor-in-chief asks a new evaluation on the part of a third referee. Based on this reviewing he takes the decision for article publication.
