Peer Review Policy

The journal follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles. The review process adheres to the best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Type of Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, in which:

  • The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial office to check:

  • Scope relevance

  • Basic quality and formatting

  • Plagiarism (using plagiarism detection tools)

  • Compliance with journal guidelines

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic criteria may be rejected without external review.

3. Reviewer Assignment

  • Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers

  • Reviewers are selected based on expertise, experience, and research background

  • The editorial board ensures no conflict of interest in reviewer selection

4. Review Process

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Methodological rigor

  • Clarity and organization

  • Relevance to the journal scope

  • Quality of references and citations

Reviewers provide recommendations such as:

  • Accept

  • Minor revisions

  • Major revisions

  • Reject

5. Review Timeline

  • Initial screening: 3–7 days

  • Peer review process: 4–8 weeks

  • Final decision: within 6–10 weeks (depending on revisions)

The journal strives to maintain a fair and timely review process.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must:

  • Address all reviewer comments point-by-point

  • Highlight changes made in the revised manuscript

  • Resubmit within the specified timeline

Revised manuscripts may be sent for further review if required.

7. Final Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor based on:

  • Reviewer comments

  • Quality of revisions

  • Overall contribution to the field

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents.

  • Reviewers must not share or use the manuscript content for personal advantage

  • Editors must protect the confidentiality of submissions

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must declare any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the review process if necessary.

10. Ethical Standards

The journal follows strict ethical standards:

  • No bias based on nationality, gender, or institutional affiliation

  • No influence of commercial interests

  • Strict adherence to academic integrity

11. Reviewer Acknowledgment

The journal may acknowledge reviewers annually for their contributions while maintaining review confidentiality.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal request with justification. Appeals will be reviewed by the editorial board.

13. Policy Updates

This peer review policy may be updated periodically to reflect evolving academic publishing standards.

14. Contact Information

For queries related to the peer review process, authors may contact the editorial office via the official journal email.