Articles submitted to the journals are reviewed to ensure they technically comply with the journal's requirements. Unsuitable articles are returned to the corresponding author for necessary revisions. If the revised article is resubmitted and deemed suitable after further technical review, it is sent to the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief evaluates the article and may reject it at this stage if it is considered unsuitable from a scientific or ethical perspective. Upon approval, the editor appoints one of the journal's associate editors, appropriate for the subject matter, to review the article.

The associate editor may appoint or act as a review editor. The review editor nominates at least two reviewers who are relevant to the subject. If at least two reviewers submit their reviews, and the third or fourth reviewer has accepted the invitation, their reports are expected by the deadline. If the reviewer reports are incomplete by the deadline and at least two reviewers have submitted their reports, the editor can initiate an interactive review if the submitted reports are sufficient. On the other hand, if the review editor finds the existing reports insufficient, new reviewers may be invited or a reminder email may be sent to previously invited reviewers.

If the number of reports received from reviewers is acceptable and sufficient, the review editor initiates the interactive review. The review editor monitors the reviewers' evaluations and the corresponding author's responses and addresses both parties if necessary. The review editor may accept or reject the article at the end of all correspondence. In either case, the decision should be supported by reasons. If the article is accepted for publication, the associate editor, followed by the editor-in-chief, confirms the acceptance decision. In both cases, the editors provide the reasons. The reasons and decision are then communicated to the corresponding author.