Initial Evaluation

Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or editorial office to determine its suitability for the journal. This preliminary evaluation focuses on several key aspects, including the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope, originality of the work, academic contribution, clarity of presentation, and adherence to submission guidelines.

Manuscripts that are found to be outside the scope of the journal, lack originality, contain significant methodological or conceptual weaknesses, demonstrate poor language quality, or show high similarity may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to external peer review. Authors are generally informed of the decision within 7–10 days.

Screening and Manuscript Preparation

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are further checked for completeness and compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements. Authors must ensure that all required sections are included and that the manuscript follows the prescribed structure and style.

If any discrepancies are identified, the manuscript is returned to the authors for correction. Authors are expected to revise and resubmit the manuscript within the given timeframe. Only manuscripts that fully comply with the journal’s requirements are forwarded for peer review.

Type of Peer Review

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review model to ensure impartial and unbiased evaluation. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

To maintain anonymity, authors are required to submit two separate files: a title page containing author details and a blinded manuscript without any identifying information. This approach promotes fairness and objectivity in the evaluation process.

Review Process

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. The journal maintains a network of qualified reviewers who contribute their academic knowledge and experience to assess submissions critically.

Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, constructive, and evidence-based feedback. They may submit comments intended for the authors, as well as confidential remarks to the editorial team. Reviewer comments are shared among reviewers when necessary to ensure consistency in evaluation.

The journal aims to complete the peer review process within approximately 20–30 days. However, in cases where reviewer reports conflict or are delayed, additional reviewers may be invited to provide further assessment. In some cases, manuscripts may undergo multiple rounds of review to meet the required academic standards.

Revision and Resubmission

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a detailed response document addressing each reviewer comment on a point-by-point basis.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. The revision process may involve multiple rounds until the manuscript meets the journal’s publication standards.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and editorial assessment, a decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The possible outcomes include:

• Acceptance
• Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions
• Rejection

The decision, along with reviewer comments and recommendations, is communicated to the authors.

Final Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript is accepted, it undergoes language editing and technical formatting to ensure clarity and consistency. Authors may be required to submit necessary documents, including copyright transfer and conflict of interest declarations.

Accepted manuscripts may be published online as “Articles in Press” prior to final publication. The preparation of final proofs typically takes 3–5 days, during which authors are required to review and approve the content.

Ethical Standards and Responsibilities

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics. All participants involved in the peer review process—authors, reviewers, and editors—must adhere to ethical principles, including:

• Maintaining strict confidentiality of manuscripts
• Disclosing any conflicts of interest
• Ensuring objectivity and fairness in evaluation
• Avoiding the use of unpublished material for personal benefit

These practices align with internationally accepted ethical guidelines and contribute to the integrity and reliability of the scholarly publishing process.