All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process, ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.
All manuscripts must be original, must not be under consideration elsewhere, and must not have been previously published. The journal uses a secure online submission and review system.
The Review Process Stages
1. Initial Editorial Pre-Check
Immediately upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or a designated Associate Editor conducts an initial evaluation.
This stage focuses on:
Relevance to the journal’s scope
Compliance with manuscript preparation guidelines
Ethical requirements (e.g., ethical approval, informed consent where applicable)
Initial screening for plagiarism and similarity check
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be desk rejected or returned to authors for correction before further processing.
2. Subject Expert Assignment & Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the pre-check are assigned to a qualified Associate Editor or subject expert.
The Associate Editor is responsible for:
Conducting a detailed assessment of the manuscript’s scientific quality and methodology
Evaluating its suitability for external review
Selecting and inviting at least two independent external expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise
3. External Peer Review
At least two independent expert reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:
Scientific originality and contribution
Methodological rigor and validity
Ethical compliance
Data analysis and interpretation
Clarity and academic quality
All reviewer reports are submitted to the Associate Editor and Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer and author identities remain strictly confidential throughout the process.
4. Final Decision-Making
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and editorial recommendations.
At least two favorable expert reviews are generally required for acceptance. In case of conflicting recommendations, a third independent expert reviewer may be consulted.
Editorial decisions include:
Accept
Minor revision
Major revision (revise and resubmit)
Reject
All editorial decisions are final.
Editorial Decisions and Revision
Accept after minor revisions: Authors must address reviewer comments within the given timeframe.
Reconsider after major revisions: Authors must submit a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer comments.
Reject and encourage resubmission: Manuscripts requiring substantial additional work may be rejected with an invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript.
Reject: Manuscripts with serious methodological flaws, ethical issues, or lack of originality are rejected without possibility of resubmission.
All reviewer comments must be addressed point-by-point. Authors must clearly explain any disagreements with reviewers in their response letter.
Review Duration and Complaints Policy
The peer review process typically takes 2–3 months, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity (For more accurate and detailed information, please refer to the journal's Author Guidelines).
The journal is committed to fair handling of all complaints and appeals:
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the Editor-in-Chief
Complaints are acknowledged within six working days
Updates are provided every two weeks until resolution
The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final
Publication
After acceptance, manuscripts undergo copy-editing and are sent to authors for final approval. A publication-ready PDF is then prepared and published online.
All articles are published as open access under the of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. Authors retain copyright of their work.
Each article is assigned a DOI and archived for long-term preservation.
Indexing
After publication, articles are submitted to relevant indexing databases for potential indexing and dissemination.
Becoming a Reviewer
Qualified experts interested in joining the peer review system may contact the editorial office: [email protected]
