The journal follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality, academic integrity, and scholarly rigor. The identity of both the authors and the reviewers is kept confidential throughout the review cycle.
- Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system or email. All submissions must comply with the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.
- Initial Editorial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editor conducts an initial screening to assess:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
- Adherence to submission guidelines
- Basic quality and originality
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected without peer review.
- Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Identifying information will be removed from the manuscript to maintain anonymity. Reviewers are selected based on their subject matter expertise, absence of conflicts of interest and prior reviewing experience (if possible).
- Double-Blind Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:
- Originality and significance of the contribution
- Soundness of methodology and research design
- Clarity of presentation
- Appropriateness of references and citations
- Validity of conclusions
Reviewers submit a detailed report and a recommendation: Accept, Minor revisions, Major revisions, Reject. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
- Editorial Decision
The assigned editor considers the reviewers’ reports and makes a decision:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is or with minimal editorial changes.
- Minor Revisions: The author is asked to address specific comments, after which the editor may accept the manuscript without further external review.
- Major Revisions: Substantial changes are required; the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
Authors are notified of the decision with anonymized reviewer comments.
- Final Evaluation
If revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised version with all the reviewers’ and editor’s comments addressed. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review or editorial assessment before a final decision is made.
- Acceptance and Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript enters the production phase, which includes copyediting, typesetting, and formatting. The published article becomes part of the journal's archive and is made available to readers worldwide.
Review Timeline
We aim to complete the peer review process within 1–3 weeks from the date of submission. However, this timeline may vary based on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.
Confidentiality and Ethics
All submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to review in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
Complaints and Appeals
The journal has a structured policy for handling complaints and appeals. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must contact the Editor-in-Chief, providing justifications for reconsideration. The appeal process involves re-evaluating the manuscript along with the peer reviewers' comments, with the possibility of additional peer review if necessary.