The pre-screening stage includes two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an academic editor. Firstly, the senior editor will perform the technical pre-check to assess:

l   The suitability of the manuscript to the journal/Research Topic;

l   Manuscript adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards.

Then an academic editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of a regular submission or a Topic Editor in the case of a Topic submission and an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest) will pre-check the article for the sustainability of the follow-up process, e.g., consistency with the journal’s field, scientific innovation, the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. The academic editors can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.

An academic editor is not allowed to participate in any review process of submissions that may involve a conflict of interest, and the editorial office will appoint an Editorial Board member with no conflict of interest as a substitute. Topic Editors of Topics are not able to make decisions regarding their own manuscripts submitted to their Topics, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. Moreover, Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board members are not able to access the review process of their manuscript except in their role as author.

EIVX operates a single-blind peer review process to ensure quality and originality of publications. It means reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors don’t know the identity of reviewers. By hiding the author's identity, the reviewers are less likely to be influenced by factors such as the author's reputation, institution, or country and to ensure they can avoid any potential competing interests in accepting a review invitation.

1. A submitted manuscript is firstly handled by the in-house editor, who will coordinate the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers.

2. Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers. Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article.  

Reviewers’ criteria:

l   They should be senior, on topic and have published recently on the subject, hold a PhD or be a MD (applicable for medical journals);

l   They should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors, or come from the same institution as the authors;

l   They should not have published together with the authors in the last three years;

The aims of our reviewers should always be to:

l   focus on the quality of the science objectively;

l   collaborate towards improvement and think constructively;

l   help the author and editor understand what is needed with clear comments.

3. Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 7–10 days to write their review. Extensions can be granted on request. When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. Extensions can also be granted on request.

The publishers normally allow one round of revision, and in exceptional cases, a second round of revision may be allowed. The authors are usually requested to resubmit the revised paper together with detailed responses to reviewer reports, and the in-house editor will send them to the reviewers for further evaluation. 

Upon recommendations by the reviewers, the academic editor will make a final decision on the paper. The academic editor can select from the following options: accept in its current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject and encourage resubmission, ask the author for a revision, or ask for an additional reviewer.

An academic editor is not allowed to make decisions on their own papers. Their submissions are assigned and revised by at least two independent reviewers. Decisions are made by other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors.

Authors may appeal for a rejected submission. Appeal requests must be made by writing an email to the editorial office of the corresponding journal with detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ remarks. Appeals can only be submitted following a "reject and decline resubmission" decision and should be submitted within three months from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being considered further. The editor-in-chief and other relevant editors will consider the appeal, and the decision is final and no further consideration will be made.

An accepted paper will be sent for copy editing, language editing, and proofreading before publication. After the production stage is completed, authors are required to check the PDF file of the final version before the article is published.