Peer Review Process
All manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Chief Editor, Executive Editor and the
Associate Editor who is responsible for the respective scientific field. A submission is
rejected outright if the majority opinion finds that (1) the material does not have
sufficient merit to warrant further review or (2) the subject matter is outside the
scope of the Journal. The submission may also be returned for inadequate
presentation or failure to comply with the HJVES’s submission instructions.
Papers deemed suitable are then sent to two independent expert reviewers to
assess the scientific quality of the paper. The identities of these reviewers are kept
confidential. Within 20 days, the reviewers give the Editors a confidential opinion on
the importance, originality, and scientific merit of the manuscript and suggest
changes that will improve the paper. The Associate Editors are responsible for the
final decision on the disposition of the manuscript and convey this decision to the
corresponding author along with the reasons for the decision and the comments
from the reviewers. If revisions are requested, the Editors expect the authors to
revise the manuscript promptly and to indicate the changes that have been made
and/or explain their difference of opinion with the reviewers.
The revised manuscripts are reviewed by the same reviewers who made the initial
evaluation. Reviewers are expected to concentrate their appraisal on whether the
authors have adequately addressed the previous comments. The Associate Editor is
responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The
Editor’s decision is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which
they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues
or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such
submission is subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, with peer review
handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups.
