We operate a programme to compel critical reviews from leading authors around the world and on a variety of topics. We invite reviewers to submit a specific subject and, in some cases, we even propose a review structure that the author should follow when drafting the review.
Publication processing fee
These invited reviews are normally submitted via our website and are exempt from payment of publishing processing fees.
Editorial decision-making
Our long-standing policy has been not to inform editorial decision makers of the invitations and spontaneous submissions of papers. Our view has always been that editorial decision-makers should not be confused about a paper or against it simply because it was invited. Good papers should be accepted and bad papers must be rejected, regardless of their source. As a result, some invited reviews will be rejected.
The manuscript is subject to the same checks as all other manuscripts
All submitted manuscripts are subject to the same checks that each paper undergoes. These are:
- Authors and their affiliations are checked
- All authors are asked for conflict of interest
- Cross Check anti-plagiarism software is used to verify the reuse of materials
- Most journals do not consider meta-analysis for publication anymore, so please check before preparing this type of paper to be submitted, because it may be rejected
- External peer review requires at least two comprehensive narrative comments and two numerical scores
- The editorial decision makers, often the editors-in-chief, review the submitted manuscripts, peer reviewer comments and scores and conflicts of interest declarations In order to prevent bias
- Our policy is for editorial decision makers not to know whether a paper is invited to review. The decision will be made solely on the basis of peer review and we cannot guarantee the acceptance of any article.
After first editorial review
Many manuscripts will need to be modified to address issues raised by peer reviewers or proposed by editorial decision makers. This is not the case, we must address all the points raised. Rather, we asked the author to provide us with a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the questions raised. If the author disagrees with an individual points or feels he is misunderstood, he/she should detail this point by point in his/her response.
The editorial decision-maker who reviewed the submission in the first editorial review receives the revised manuscript and the covering letter point by point and makes a decision. This may be to reject the paper, to return it to the peer reviewers for further consideration, or to return it directly to the author to address further points. They may also decide to accept the publishing of the paper.
