All submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Office will be checked whether it is properly prepared and whether the manuscript follows the ethical policies of the journal. Manuscripts that do not fit the journals ethical policy will be rejected before peer-review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. After these checks, Editor-in-Chief or the Guest Editor (or an Editorial Board member in case of a conflict of interest) will determine whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and whether it is scientifically sound. No judgment on the significance or potential impact of the work will be made at this stage. Reject decisions at this stage will be verified by the Editor-in-Chief.
Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review. ORESTA use double blind peer review process. Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final.
In the case of regular submissions, assistant editors will invite experts. These experts may also include Editorial Board members and Guest Editors of the journal. In the case of a special issue, the Guest Editor will advise on the selection of reviewers.
Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. Reviewers should not have published with any of the co-authors during the past five years and should not currently work on one of the institutes of the co-authors of the submitted manuscript.
Editorial Decision and Revision
All the articles, reviews and communications published in ORESTA go through the peer-review process and receive at least two reviews. The editor will communicate the decision, which will be one of the following:
- Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given seven days for minor revisions.
- Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within fifteen days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
- Reject and Encourage Resubmission: An article where additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions will be rejected and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.
The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.
All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.
Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal will forward the manuscript and relating information (including the identities of the referees) to an Editorial Board member. If no appropriate Editorial Board member is available, the editor will identify a suitable external scientist. The Editorial Board member will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage will be final and cannot be revoked.
In the case of a special issue, the Editor-in-Chief will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage will be final and cannot be revoked.