Peer Review Process

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process, ensuring fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity. A detailed outline of the peer review procedure is provided below.

Submission and Initial Assessment Stage

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission and formatting guidelines, clarity of language, and overall presentation. The Editor also evaluates the originality, research quality, and academic significance of the work. Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected, allowing authors to seek a more suitable publication outlet.

Peer Review Stage

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are forwarded to the double-blind peer review stage. The handling editor assigns the manuscript to two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are typically expected to complete their evaluations within two to three weeks. Manuscripts are reviewed based on criteria such as originality, novelty, contribution to existing knowledge, methodological rigor, ethical considerations, and clarity of presentation.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, one of the following recommendations is made:

  • Acceptance without revisions
  • Acceptance with minor revisions
  • Acceptance with major revisions
  • Rejection

In cases where reviewer recommendations conflict, the manuscript may be sent for an additional round of peer review.

Revision Stage

Authors receive detailed reviewer comments and are given a specified timeframe to revise their manuscripts. Minor revisions are generally expected within one week, while major revisions may take up to two weeks. Revised manuscripts are resubmitted and reassessed by the handling editor or, where necessary, by the original reviewers to ensure that all comments and required improvements have been adequately addressed.

Final Decision Stage

Following the revision process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the manuscript. If the revised submission meets the journal’s academic and ethical standards and satisfactorily addresses reviewer feedback, it is formally accepted for publication. If concerns remain, further revisions may be requested, or the manuscript may be rejected if it does not meet the required standards.

Copyediting, Layout Editing, and Proofreading Stage

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production phase, which includes professional copyediting to enhance clarity, consistency, and linguistic accuracy. This is followed by layout editing to ensure conformity with the journal’s formatting standards. A final proofreading stage is conducted prior to publication, during which authors may review the final version to confirm accuracy and completeness.

Complaints and Appeals

The journal maintains a transparent and structured policy for handling complaints and appeals. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should contact the Editor-in-Chief with a clear justification for reconsideration. Appeals involve a reassessment of the manuscript alongside reviewer reports and may include additional peer review if deemed necessary. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision following an appeal is final. All complaints are acknowledged within two working days and are handled promptly, fairly, and professionally.