Peer Review Policy

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and quality through a rigorous, transparent, and efficient peer review process. The following outlines the steps and policies governing the peer review process:

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

  • All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the assigned editor, who evaluates the submission for:
    • Originality: The manuscript must present novel findings or significant contributions to the field.
    • Relevance: The manuscript must align with the journal’s aims and scope.
    • Quality: The manuscript should demonstrate a sound methodology, clear presentation, and proper language use.
  • Manuscripts that fail to meet these basic criteria may be desk-rejected at this stage. The editor will provide constructive feedback to the authors, outlining the reasons for rejection (e.g., lack of originality, poor grammar, or misalignment with the journal’s scope).

2. Assignment to Reviewers

  • If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to 2–5 external reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on:
    • Subject matter expertise.
    • Availability and willingness to review within the specified timeframe.
    • Absence of conflicts of interest.
  • The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, where reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not have access to reviewer identities.

3. Review Timeline

  • Reviewers are given 4–6 weeks to evaluate the manuscript and submit their reports. Extensions may be granted in special circumstances, but timely reviews are encouraged to ensure an efficient editorial process.

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript provide new insights or significant contributions to the field?
  • Methodological Rigor: Are the research design, methods, and analysis appropriate and well-executed?
  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and professionally presented?
  • Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s scope and address important research questions?
  • Ethical Standards: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical guidelines (e.g., research involving human or animal subjects)?
  • References and Citations: Are references accurate, relevant, and properly cited?

Reviewers will submit their recommendations along with detailed comments to the editor. Recommendations can include one of the following:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minimal changes.
  • Consider after Minor Changes: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be accepted.
  • Consider after Major Changes: The manuscript requires significant revisions and will undergo further review after resubmission.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

5. Editorial Decision

Once all reviewers have submitted their reports, the editor evaluates the feedback and makes an editorial recommendation based on the reviewers’ input and their own assessment of the manuscript. The possible editorial decisions are:

  • Publish: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
  • Consider after Minor Changes: The authors are asked to submit a revised manuscript addressing minor issues identified by the reviewers. The editor reviews the revised manuscript to ensure the changes are satisfactory.
  • Consider after Major Changes: The authors are asked to revise the manuscript based on significant feedback. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor for further evaluation.
  • Reject: The manuscript is rejected due to insufficient quality, lack of originality, or misalignment with the journal’s scope

If two or more reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript will be automatically rejected.

6. Revision Process

  • For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors are provided with detailed feedback from the reviewers and editor. Authors are expected to:
    • Address all comments and suggestions thoroughly.
    • Highlight changes made to the manuscript in a detailed response letter.
  • Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the specified timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks for minor revisions and 4–8 weeks for major revisions) Extensions may be granted upon request.

7. Final Acceptance

  • Once the editor is satisfied that all reviewer comments have been addressed and the manuscript meets the journal’s quality standards, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
  • Accepted manuscripts undergo a final editorial check for formatting, grammar, and adherence to journal guidelines before publication.

8. Transparency and Ethical Standards

  • The journal follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to ensure ethical practices in peer review and publication.
  • Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and must decline to review if a conflict exists.
  • Authors are required to confirm that their work adheres to ethical standards, including obtaining necessary approvals for research involving human or animal subjects.

9. Reviewer Recognition and Feedback

  • The journal values the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their efforts through:
    • Acknowledgment in the journal’s annual report or website.
    • Certificates of appreciation for completed reviews.
    • Opportunities to join the journal’s editorial board based on consistent, high-quality reviews.
  • Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work, even if the manuscript is ultimately rejected.

10. Continuous Improvement

  • The journal regularly reviews and updates its peer review policies to ensure alignment with international standards and best practices.
  • Feedback from reviewers, authors, and editors is used to refine the review process and improve efficiency and quality.