Peer Review Process

Submission and Initial Screening:

All manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial office to ensure alignment with the journal’s scope, quality standards, and formatting requirements.

Anonymization:

Authors are required to remove all identifying information from their manuscripts. The editorial team further ensures complete anonymization before the review process begins.

Reviewer Selection:

Manuscripts are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise and academic experience.

Review Evaluation:

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the field, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical standards.

Reviewer Recommendations:

Based on their assessment, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Editorial Decision and Communication:

The editorial team considers the reviewers’ feedback and makes a decision, which is communicated to the authors while maintaining reviewer anonymity.

Revision and Re-evaluation:

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in line with reviewer comments. Revised submissions may be sent for further review if necessary.

Final Decision:

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the editorial board.

Ethics and Confidentiality:

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and are required to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

Continuous Improvement:

The journal encourages constructive feedback from reviewers and authors to enhance the transparency, efficiency, and fairness of the peer review process.