FLOWCHART FOR THE EDITORIAL PROCESS

To make transparent the editorial process to authors, readers, members of the Editorial Team and the community, the flowchart is published on the webpage of the journal.

Editorial Flowchart

Action 1: What Editor-in-Chief should check in the preliminary reviewing. (7 days maximum)

Cover letter
a. Full name, address and ORCID of all authors and coauthors (check ORCID).
b. One paragraph remarking on the novelty and relevance of the work.
c. Declaration of the integrity of the results submitted for publication.
d. Declaration that the submitted manuscript is original, and its content has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
e. Declaration of conflict of interest between authors or any other conflict of interest.
f. Information about data availability and how to access them.
g. Information if some Artificial Intelligence tool has been used.
h. AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS according to CRediT taxonomy.
i. List with the full name, email, and institution of 5 (five) potential reviewers.
j. Answered the questions about open review practices.

Manuscript
a. English is acceptable (English review is needed!).
b. Abstract 170 words maximum.
c. Keywords (3-5).
d. Graphical abstract.
e. Highlights (3-5 bullet points with 85 characters maximum including spaces).
f. "No conceptual mistakes".
g. SI units and correct abbreviations are used.
h. Tables, equations, schemes, and figures are sequentially numbered.
i. All items, subitems and sub subitems are correctly numbered with italic/bold correctly applied when required.
j. References follow the journal’s rules.
l. Suspicions of some ethical issues.
m. MS and CL come back to the authors (authors have 10 days) or goes to reviewers.
n. Editor-in-chief indicates the associate editor.

Action 2: What Associated Editor (5 days maximum) - Send to the Staff
a. Suspicions of some ethical issues (notify the editor-in-chief).
b. Send the list of at least 5 reviewers (Full name, email, institution, and, if possible, phone number).

Action 3: Between two actions:
a. Check if the invited reviewers accepted the invitation (3 days). If not, send a reminder via email and send a list to Staff with more reviewers. Staff sends reminders for AE.
b. Check if the reviewing deadline (1st round 21 days) is soon and send an alert to reviewers (Staff makes this too).
c. To find the e-mail address of the reviewer who has agreed to give an opinion, go to: Submission ---> Users & Roles ---> Search ---> Type the reviewer's name
d. For invited reviews: Use your reviewer list sent to staff.

Action 4: Receiving the reviews (minimum 2 - Round 1) 
a. check that the authors have used the corrected version sent by the editor-in-chief after the First Corrections (suggestion check that all references are cited correctly in the text and in the list of references).
b. Read the review: observe if it contributes to improving the MS and is polite.
c. If it is not polite, clean the review, maintaining its essence.
d. If the review does not contribute or is too superficial (find another reviewer – 3days)
e. Send decision to Staff (5days).
f. Send to authors (they have 45 days) or recommend rejection in the present form (new submission possible).

Action 5: Receiving reviews (minimum 2 - Round 2 or more)

a. Reading the review: observe if it contributes to improving the MS and is polite.
b. If it is not polite, clean the review, maintaining its essence.
c. Send decision to Staff (5days maximum).
d. Send to authors (30days) or recommend rejection in the present form (new submission possible).

Action 6: Receiving the reviews (minimum 2 - Round 2 or more)
a. Read the review: observe if it contributes to improving the MS and is polite.
b. If it is not polite, clean the review, maintaining its essence.
c. Send decision to Staff (5 days maximum).
d. Recommend acceptance or go to another round or Reject.