ISSN(print) 2360-2406; ISSN(on-line) 2502-0285; ISSN-L 2360-2406


Peer review process is the major quality maintenance measure for any academic journal. In this process, experts in the relevant fields analyze the scholarly work from every perspective, including its writing, the accuracy of its technical content, its documentation, and its impact and significance to the discipline.

Reviewers play a pivotal role in the scholar publishing, and their valuable opinions certify the quality of the article under consideration. Peer review helps to ratify research, establishing a standard for evaluation within research communities.

THE EVALUATION PROCESS is performed as follows in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (

  • Each manuscript will be reviewed by the editors-in-chief and at least two independent reviewers with expertise within the scope of the article, in a double blinded fashion, according to the peer-review protocol;
  • The paper is evaluated to comply with the domain of the journal;
  • If the paper sent by e-mail pertains to the domain of the journal, it will receive a code comprising the journal name and the paper’s number and issuing year (eg, Stoma Edu J-2014-01). Numbering starts with 01 every year;
  • The author submits, in the cover letter to the editor submitted online with the manuscript, the names, affiliations and e-mail addresses of four potential referees. Two reviewers specialized in the domain covered by the paper are selected from among the reviewers recommended. Note that the editor will decide whether or not these reviewers are contacted;
  • The same day, the paper is e-mailed to the reviewers (without the author’s names), together with the guidance for the authors and the evaluation guide, which contain the assessment record, as well as the due date for the review to be returned (usually, one week);
  • The invitation to participate in the paper evaluation is forwarded to the reviewers together with the paper; the reviewers are asked to confirm receipt and/or whether they are available to evaluate; if the respective reviewer is not available, the paper is forwarded to another reviewer;
  • After having received the paper from the reviewers, according to the observations which have been made, the manuscript will be:
  1. published (no observations have been made);
  2. retransmitted to the author to respond to the reviewers’ observations (when there are minor or moderate observations), and then published;
  3. rejected if the reviewers’ observations are important (or if they recommend the rejection of the paper);
  • The reviewers must check whether the stages of the research presented in the respective papers are in compliance with the world trends, the papers drafted by other authors, the novelty, the methodology, the results obtained, etc. (according to the evaluation file);
  • The management of the Stoma Edu J Editorial Board, involved in editing the journal, cannot interfere with the acceptance or rejection of any specific paper; its task is only to coordinate the papers: to sort, distribute to reviewers, respond, etc., but not to decide whether to publish a paper or not;
  • The management of the Stoma Edu J Editorial Board takes care that the evaluation process should be correctly performed, without any bias or malicious character;
  • The decision to accept or reject a paper is based on the independent reviewers’ decision;
  • If the two reviewers’ decisions are conflicting, the paper will be sent to a third reviewer, and the final decision will be taken by considering the two most related decisions submitted by the three reviewers;
  • The publisher reserves the right to edit accepted manuscripts to fit the space available and to ensure conciseness, clarity, and stylistic consistency, subject to the author’s final approval.

 Adobe-PDFdownload the Manuscript Review Form

Adobe-PDFdownload the Peer Review Guidelines COPE