Peer Review Policy: All content of EASL is subject to peer-review. All articles published in EASL have undergone rigorous peer review (double-blind peer review), by members of the editorial board and the review panel. The EASL Editor first checks and evaluates the submitted manuscripts, examining its fit and quality regarding its significance, manuscript format, and research quality. If it is suitable for potential EASL publication, the editor directs the manuscript to two reviewers, with both of them being experts in the field. After both reviewers' feedback, the editorial board decides if the manuscript will be rejected, accepted with revisions needed, or accepted for publication. A diagram that illustrates the review and publishing process could be seen below.
Reviewers are objective for all judgments in the peer-review process. Reviewers are assigned in order to have no conflict of interest. Reviewers might point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Submitted manuscripts are treated confidentially prior to their publication.
Peer reviewed feedback and results will be sent to the corresponding author for corrections (if necessary). Edits will be made available to corresponding authors before publishing. Edited/Revised papers should be returned to the publisher within three days.
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. All manuscripts submitted to EASL are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation: The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. It is rare but possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside of the aims and scope of the journal. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2-3 weeks of receipt.
Type of peer review: This journal employs double-blind review, where the author and referee remain anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected: Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations are not necessarily used.
Referee reports: Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
How long does the review process take? The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. However, the typical time for EASL is approximately 3 months. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee's report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject, or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee's report. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
The Editor's decision is final. Referees advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a referee for EASL: If you are not currently a referee of EASL but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editorial office at: [email protected]. The benefits of refereeing for EASL include the opportunity to read, see, and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of academic research and its published documentation.
We aim to respond to and resolve all complaints quickly and constructively. The procedures to investigate and resolve complaints followed by EASL aims to be fair and balanced for those making complaints and for those being complained about.
For Appeal against editorial decisions: If the authors disagree with the editorial decision on their manuscripts, they have a right to appeal.
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should contact the Editor-in-Chief of EASL. In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief will review the manuscript, editorial and peer reviewers' comments and give his/her decision for accepting or rejecting a manuscript. Editor-in-Chief may, if so required, send the manuscript to a new handling editor for a fresh editorial review and to new referees for peer review. Decision of the Editor-in-Chief in such case will be final.
Complaints related to policies, procedures, editorial content, and actions of the editorial staff:
The procedure to make a complaint is easy. The complaint can be made by writing an email. Ideally, the complaint should be made to the person with whom the complainant is in regular contact for the matter being complained about. If due to any reason it is not appropriate or possible to complain to the contact person, please email to: [email protected] to send complaints.
All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days.
For all matters related to the policies, procedures, editorial content, and actions of the editorial staff, the decision of the Editor-in-Chief will be final. If the Editor-in-Chief is unavailable for any reason, the complaint will be referred to the Executive Editor of EASL.
Complaint Resolution: All efforts will be made to resolve the complaint as quickly as possible. In some cases, delay in complaint resolution may occur if a response from any third person or organization is required. Until the complaint is resolved, a complaint resolution update will be provided to the complainant, every two weeks, until the complaint is finally resolved.
Conflicts of Interest Policy: Transparency and objectivity in research are essential for EASL. These principles are strictly followed in our peer review process and decision for publication. Manuscript submissions are assigned to reviewers in an effort to minimize potential conflicts of interest. The following relationships between reviewers and authors are considered conflicts and are avoided: Current colleagues, recent colleagues, recent co-authors, and doctoral students for which editor served as their committee chair. After papers are assigned, individual reviewers are required to inform the editor-in-chief of any conflicts mentioned in the list above and any other conflicts that may exist.