Editorial & Peer review
NCT uses a double-blind peer review process (the identities of both authors and reviewers are anonymous); the review process includes:
2. Initial review by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief reviews whether the article meets the journal’s scope, originality, and scientific quality to continue the peer review process and eventually be published in the journal. In addition, the manuscript is evaluated to rule out plagiarism, duplicate publication, and related issues. The article may be rejected at this stage, and this decision will be notified to the corresponding author.
3. Assignment to an Associate Editor
If it is decided that the article may continue in the review process, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the article to an Associate Editor in the relevant specialty or area to supervise the peer review process. The Associate Editor must verify that there is no conflict of interest, in accordance with the COPE definition.
4. Invitation of reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to expert reviewers who are considered appropriate based on their area of expertise related to the topic of the article. The number of reviewers will be at least two. Reviewers are responsible for declaring whether there is any potential conflict of interest; if so, the reviewer will be excluded.
5. Peer review procedure
Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript (as thoroughly and objectively as possible) and issue a recommendation according to the following options: 1) accept the manuscript without changes; 2) suggest minor changes; 3) recommend major changes; and 4) reject the manuscript. Reviewers may also provide suggestions to improve the quality of the article.
6. Analysis of the review results
The Associate Editor takes the peer review reports into consideration to issue the final decision. Acceptance of the manuscript depends on a favorable recommendation from both reviewers. When reviewers differ in their recommendations, the editor may invite one or more additional reviewers to make a decision.
7. Communication of the final decision to the author
The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision to the corresponding author, via email and/or through the electronic manuscript management system; the decision includes the most relevant reviewers’ comments. If the decision is to resubmit the manuscript with changes, it will be sent again for full peer review evaluation.
8. Final preparation of the manuscript for publication
The Editorial Committee and the publishing company conduct a double review of the final version of the manuscript with respect to style and grammar, as well as the references. Prior to publication, in all cases the author will receive the typeset proofs of the article for final approval.
9. The processing of all articles is governed by best practices.
1. Receipt and review by the editorial office
Once the article is submitted, the editorial office reviews whether the document complies with the Instructions for Authors regarding format and style, sections, references, etc. (available in the Instructions for Authors). If these requirements are not met, the article may be rejected; however, authors may resubmit the manuscript for consideration once the editorial requirements have been fulfilled.
Once the article is submitted, the editorial office reviews whether the document complies with the Instructions for Authors regarding format and style, sections, references, etc. (available in the Instructions for Authors). If these requirements are not met, the article may be rejected; however, authors may resubmit the manuscript for consideration once the editorial requirements have been fulfilled.
2. Initial review by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief reviews whether the article meets the journal’s scope, originality, and scientific quality to continue the peer review process and eventually be published in the journal. In addition, the manuscript is evaluated to rule out plagiarism, duplicate publication, and related issues. The article may be rejected at this stage, and this decision will be notified to the corresponding author.
3. Assignment to an Associate Editor
If it is decided that the article may continue in the review process, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the article to an Associate Editor in the relevant specialty or area to supervise the peer review process. The Associate Editor must verify that there is no conflict of interest, in accordance with the COPE definition.
4. Invitation of reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to expert reviewers who are considered appropriate based on their area of expertise related to the topic of the article. The number of reviewers will be at least two. Reviewers are responsible for declaring whether there is any potential conflict of interest; if so, the reviewer will be excluded.
5. Peer review procedure
Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript (as thoroughly and objectively as possible) and issue a recommendation according to the following options: 1) accept the manuscript without changes; 2) suggest minor changes; 3) recommend major changes; and 4) reject the manuscript. Reviewers may also provide suggestions to improve the quality of the article.
6. Analysis of the review results
The Associate Editor takes the peer review reports into consideration to issue the final decision. Acceptance of the manuscript depends on a favorable recommendation from both reviewers. When reviewers differ in their recommendations, the editor may invite one or more additional reviewers to make a decision.
7. Communication of the final decision to the author
The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision to the corresponding author, via email and/or through the electronic manuscript management system; the decision includes the most relevant reviewers’ comments. If the decision is to resubmit the manuscript with changes, it will be sent again for full peer review evaluation.
8. Final preparation of the manuscript for publication
The Editorial Committee and the publishing company conduct a double review of the final version of the manuscript with respect to style and grammar, as well as the references. Prior to publication, in all cases the author will receive the typeset proofs of the article for final approval.
9. The processing of all articles is governed by best practices.
Please see:
– COPE best practice guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct
– ICMJE: Use of artificial intelligence in the review process:
https://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/updated_recommendations_may2023.html
https://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/updated_recommendations_may2023.html