Peer Review Policy

The journal is committed to ensuring a fair, rigorous, timely, and transparent peer review process that maintains the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

The journal follows the peer review guidelines and best practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Review Model

The journal employs a double-anonymized peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Authors are responsible for preparing manuscripts in a manner that preserves anonymity and does not reveal their identity within the manuscript file or supplementary materials.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief.

During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
  • Compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
  • Academic quality and clarity of presentation.
  • Ethical compliance and publication integrity.
  • Similarity screening and potential plagiarism concerns.

The editorial office may return manuscripts to authors for technical corrections before peer review.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, or exhibit significant ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

To preserve the integrity and independence of the review process, reviewers are selected solely by the editorial team. Reviewer invitations are based on subject expertise, research experience, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

Peer Review Procedure

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Methodological rigor and research design.
  • Quality of analysis and interpretation.
  • Validity of conclusions.
  • Organization, clarity, and presentation.
  • Adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature.
  • Compliance with ethical and academic standards.

Reviewers provide constructive comments for authors and confidential recommendations for the editorial team.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature and do not determine the final editorial decision.

Review Outcomes

Based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be issued:

  • Accept Submission
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject Submission

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may seek additional reviews before making a decision.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  • A revised manuscript.
  • A detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to new reviewers, or evaluated solely by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Major revisions may undergo one or more additional rounds of peer review before a final decision is reached.

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and/or the designated handling editor.

Editorial decisions are based on:

  • Reviewer evaluations.
  • Editorial assessment.
  • Scholarly merit.
  • Ethical compliance.
  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

The editorial team may accept, reject, or request additional revisions regardless of reviewer recommendations when justified by the overall assessment of the manuscript.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials are treated as confidential documents.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the review process before, during, and after peer review.

To preserve confidentiality and protect intellectual property, manuscripts under review must not be uploaded, submitted, or shared with generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools or third-party services that may retain, store, or use submitted content for training or other purposes.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect the impartial evaluation of a manuscript.

Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the review or decision-making process for the affected submission.

Editorial Conflicts of Interest

The Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, and other individuals involved in editorial decision-making may submit manuscripts to the journal.

In such cases, the submitting editor or board member shall have no involvement in the editorial handling, reviewer selection, peer-review process, or final decision regarding their manuscript.

The submission will be managed by an independent editor with no conflict of interest, ensuring the integrity, impartiality, and transparency of the review process.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by:

  • Authors' institutional affiliations.
  • Nationality or geographic location.
  • Gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs.
  • Sources of research funding.
  • Publication fees or financial considerations.

All submissions are evaluated solely on the basis of academic merit, originality, quality, and relevance.

Peer Review Timeline

The journal strives to complete the peer review process as efficiently as possible while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

Reviewers are typically given 14 to 21 days to complete their review. If a reviewer fails to submit their report within the agreed timeframe or withdraws from the review process, the editorial office reserves the right to assign an alternative reviewer to ensure timely completion of the review.

The journal aims to provide an initial editorial decision within approximately 4 to 6 weeks of submission. However, actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

Authors may track the status of their submissions through the journal's online submission system and will be notified promptly of editorial decisions.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, procedural error, or factual mistake may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals should include a detailed explanation and any supporting evidence relevant to the appeal.

All appeals will be reviewed independently. The final decision regarding the appeal rests with the Editor-in-Chief and is considered final.

The journal highly values the essential role of reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of published research. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, constructive, and timely assessments of submitted manuscripts.

Peer Review Process

This journal employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.

Reviewers are expected to respect and preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process. If a reviewer is able to identify the author(s) despite anonymization—such as through self-citations, funding disclosures, unique datasets, conference presentations, or publicly available preprints—the reviewer should inform the editor. Reviewers must not attempt to contact the authors or take any action that could compromise the anonymity of the review process.

The purpose of peer review is to assess the originality, significance, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's aims and scope.

Reviewer Acceptance of Invitation

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should ensure that:

  • The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
  • They can provide an objective and unbiased assessment.
  • They are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • They have no conflicts of interest that may affect their judgment.

If reviewers are unable to meet these conditions, they should promptly decline the invitation or notify the editorial office.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially based on academic merit.
  • Provide constructive and evidence-based feedback to assist authors in improving their work.
  • Assess the originality, significance, methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the manuscript.
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  • Notify the editor of any substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and other published works known to the reviewer.
  • Submit review reports within the agreed review period.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share, distribute, or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Use unpublished information, data, interpretations, or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
  • Retain or reproduce manuscript materials beyond what is necessary for the review process.

The confidentiality of the review process must be maintained before, during, and after the review assignment.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline invitations to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity.

Potential conflicts of interest may include:

  • Personal relationships with the authors.
  • Professional collaborations or competition with the authors.
  • Institutional affiliations that may influence judgment.
  • Financial interests related to the manuscript's content.

Reviewers should also decline review assignments if they believe they cannot provide an impartial assessment due to personal, academic, ideological, or professional interests related to the manuscript's subject matter.

Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the editor immediately upon recognition.

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers should conduct evaluations solely on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and must not be influenced by:

  • Nationality or citizenship of the authors.
  • Gender, race, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.
  • Institutional affiliation.
  • Political or ideological perspectives.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and maintain a professional and respectful tone in all comments.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor if they suspect:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data.
  • Unethical research practices.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Other forms of research or publication misconduct.

The journal adheres to the principles and best practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and expects reviewers to uphold these standards throughout the review process.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

To preserve confidentiality and protect intellectual property, reviewers must not upload, submit, or share any part of a manuscript, supplementary files, peer-review reports, or related correspondence with generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools or third-party services that may store, retain, or use such content for training or other purposes.

Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools for limited language or formatting assistance only, provided that no confidential manuscript content is uploaded, shared, or processed by systems that retain or use data for training purposes. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and quality of their review reports.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript provide new knowledge, insights, or perspectives?
  • Does it contribute significantly to the field of study?

Relevance

  • Is the topic consistent with the journal's aims and scope?
  • Is the subject matter relevant to current scholarly discussions?

Methodological Quality

  • Are the research design and methods appropriate?
  • Are the analyses conducted rigorously and transparently?

Results and Conclusions

  • Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
  • Are limitations adequately acknowledged?

Presentation and Organization

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?
  • Are tables, figures, and supplementary materials appropriate and informative?

Literature and References

  • Is the literature review adequate and up to date?
  • Are references relevant, accurate, and properly cited?

Guidance for Constructive Feedback

Review reports should be clear, specific, and constructive.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • Explain the basis for their recommendations.
  • Provide suggestions for improvement where appropriate.
  • Distinguish between major and minor concerns.
  • Support critical comments with evidence or reasoning.
  • Focus on improving the quality of the manuscript rather than merely identifying deficiencies.

Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject Submission

Reviewers' recommendations are advisory in nature. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

Timeliness

Reviewers are typically given 14–21 days to complete their review. Reviewers are expected to submit their review reports within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

If circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should notify the editor promptly so that alternative arrangements may be made. If a reviewer requires an extension, they should contact the editorial office before the original deadline.

Recognition of Reviewers

The journal recognizes the valuable contributions of reviewers to scholarly publishing. Reviewer identities, reports, and communications are managed in accordance with the journal's peer-review policy and confidentiality standards.

The journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions through appropriate recognition mechanisms, including annual reviewer acknowledgements and reviewer certificates where applicable, while preserving the integrity and confidentiality of the review process.