Method of reviewing is double-blind peer reviewing which takes about two weeks.

Rules of acceptance:

1. The article should provide insight into an important issue.
2. The insight is useful to people who make decisions.
3. The insight is used to develop a framework or theory.
4. The insight stimulates new, important questions.
5. The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate.
6. The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions.
7. Connections to prior work in the field or from other fields.

Technical reasons for rejection:

1. Incomplete data such as too small a sample size or missing or poor controls.
2. Poor analysis such as using inappropriate statistical tests or a lack of statistics altogether.
3. Inappropriate methodology for answering your hypothesis or using old methodology that has been surpassed by newer, more powerful methods that provide more robust results.
4. Weak research motive where your hypothesis is not clear or scientifically valid, or your data does not answer the question posed.
5. Inaccurate conclusions on assumptions that are not supported by your data.
6. Out of journal’s scope.
7. Not enough of an advance or of enough impact for the journal.
8. Research ethics ignored such as consent from patients or approval from an ethics committee for animal research.
9. Lack of proper structure or not following journal formatting requirements.
10. Lack of the necessary detail for readers to fully understand and repeat the authors’ analysis and experiments.
11. Lack of up-to-date references or references containing a high proportion of self-citations.
12. Has poor language quality such that it cannot be understood by readers.
13. Difficult to follow logic or poorly presented data.
14. Violation of publication ethics