Review Process

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. The review process consists of the following stages.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editors to assess their suitability for the journal’s focus and scope, compliance with submission guidelines, clarity of presentation, and methodological soundness. Manuscripts are also checked for similarity, with a maximum acceptable similarity score of 20%. The editors examine the nature of any overlapping text, as a similarity score alone does not establish the presence or absence of plagiarism. Manuscripts containing plagiarism, major methodological flaws, or content outside the journal’s scope may be rejected at this stage.

2. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic and research methods. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, and relevant scholarly publications. They must have no conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality and must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

3. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality and novelty, relevance, objectivity, methodological rigor, ethical considerations, clarity of results, scientific contribution, interpretation of findings, conclusions, and quality and relevance of references. Each reviewer provides constructive comments and a recommendation to accept, request minor revisions, request major revisions, or reject the manuscript.

The external peer review stage is normally completed within 5–6 weeks after the manuscript is assigned to reviewers. This timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. Authors will be informed of significant delays.

4. Author Revision

The reviewers’ comments are sent to the corresponding author for revision and response. Authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If an author disagrees with a suggestion, a clear justification must be provided. The revision deadline is specified in the editorial decision letter. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

5. Final Editorial Decision

The editors evaluate the reviewers’ recommendations, the revised manuscript, and the authors’ responses. Recommendations are considered in an editorial board meeting. If the reviewers’ assessments differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited. The final decision rests with the editor, who communicates the decision and its reasons to the corresponding author. Acceptance depends on the manuscript meeting the journal’s scholarly and ethical standards.