Editorial Policy

Editorial Guidelines

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality of the journal. They are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.

Before Accepting a Review

Accept reviews only within your area of expertise
Ensure availability to complete the review on time
Declare any conflicts of interest

Evaluation Criteria

Originality of the research
Contribution to the field
Relevance to the journal
Clarity and organization of the manuscript

Assessment of Manuscript Sections

Title: Clearly reflects the study
Abstract: Summarizes objectives, methods, results, and conclusions
Introduction: Defines research problem and objectives
Methodology: Explains research design clearly
Results: Presents findings logically
Discussion & Conclusion: Interprets results and highlights significance
Tables & Figures: Clearly labelled and relevant

Language and Clarity

Manuscripts must be written in clear and professional English. Authors are responsible for ensuring grammatical accuracy and readability before submission.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide:

A brief summary of the manuscript
Major issues requiring revision
Minor comments and suggestions
Evaluation of originality and relevance
Assessment of methodology and results

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports, the editorial team may decide:

Accept
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Reject

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Individuals with a significant conflict should not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process.