The article review process for the journal of Environmental Pollutions and Sustainable Urban Development involves two stages:
First, an initial review by a specialized editor, and if approved by the specialized editor, it is sent to reviewers. Otherwise, it is returned to the author to correct initial errors and adjust to the journal's format.
The article review process in the journal of Environmental Pollution and Sustainable Urban Development is double-blind [Authors can suggest two expert reviewers when submitting their article, but the journal is free to choose the suggested reviewers, and in any case, the names of the journal's selected reviewers will not be disclosed to the author].
In the review process, the article is initially reviewed by two expert reviewers in the relevant field, and if both reviewers approve it at this stage, the article will be accepted. Consistent opinions from both reviewers are required to decide the fate of the article. If the two reviewers disagree about accepting the article (one reviewer approves the article and the other rejects it), the article is sent to a third reviewer. Before sending it to the third reviewer, the author is asked to apply the corrective comments of the two previous reviewers to the article, and then the revised version is sent to the third reviewer. The third reviewer's opinion determines whether the article is accepted or rejected.
The approximate time for initial review and evaluation of the article by the editorial board is at least fifteen working days, and if initially accepted and sent for review, the minimum review time for articles submitted to the journal is two months; therefore, the approximate time from submission to the end of the review process will be at least two and a half months.
The reviewers' opinion on the article is expressed in one of the following four ways:
- Acceptable in its current form
- Acceptable after minor revisions
- Acceptable after major and structural changes and re-review by the reviewer (In this case, after the author makes the corrections, the article will be returned to the relevant reviewer for comment. If the reviewer approves, the article is suitable for publication, and if the corrections have not been done correctly and the reviewer's opinion is again a general review, the article will be rejected).
- Reject