Peer Review Process

1. Overview

All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of the published articles. In this process, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

2. Initial Screening

After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial evaluation to ensure that the manuscript:

  • Fits the journal’s scope
  • Follows the author guidelines
  • Meets basic quality standards
  • Is free from plagiarism (similarity check)

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review (desk rejection).

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

4. Review Process

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Methodological soundness
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Relevance to the field
  • Contribution to knowledge

Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommendations, which may include:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

5. Decision Making

The editor makes the final decision based on reviewer comments and recommendations. Authors will be notified of the decision along with detailed feedback.

6. Revision Process

If revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript and respond to reviewer comments within the specified time. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.

7. Final Decision

The editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript after considering all revisions and reviewer feedback.

8. Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading before publication.

9. Review Timeline

The review process typically takes 2–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds.

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are not allowed to share or use the information for personal advantage.

11. Ethical Standards

The review process adheres to ethical standards to ensure fairness, objectivity, and transparency. Any conflicts of interest must be declared by reviewers and editors.