Peer Review Process

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process to all manuscripts submitted for publication. Every manuscript undergoes an evaluation by independent reviewers to assess its academic quality and suitability for publication. The peer review process involves two or more reviewers with relevant expertise who examine the manuscript objectively. This process is intended to ensure scholarly quality, uphold academic standards, and enhance the credibility of published articles. The peer review procedure generally follows several stages, as outlined below.

1. Manuscript Submission

The author submits the manuscript to the journal through the available submission system. Submissions are primarily handled through an online platform supported by an Open Journal System. To accommodate authors when necessary, alternative submission methods may also be accepted during a transitional period.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The submitted manuscript is initially evaluated by an editor to determine its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. The editor also reviews the manuscript’s structure and formatting to ensure compliance with the author guidelines. At this stage, the manuscript is screened for basic quality requirements, including clarity, coherence, and potential methodological concerns. A similarity check using plagiarism detection software is conducted before the manuscript proceeds to the review stage.

3. Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the manuscript demonstrates sufficient originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be declined at this stage without external review.

4. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The handling editor identifies and invites reviewers based on their expertise, research interests, and the absence of conflicts of interest. The review process is conducted anonymously to ensure objectivity, meaning that reviewers do not know the authors’ identities and vice versa. Manuscripts are provided to reviewers without identifying information.

5. Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers evaluate the request based on their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest, and then decide whether to accept or decline the invitation. When declining, reviewers may be invited to recommend alternative reviewers.

6. Review Process

Reviewers examine the manuscript carefully, often through multiple readings. An initial reading helps form a general assessment, while subsequent readings allow reviewers to provide detailed and constructive feedback. Based on their evaluation, reviewers submit recommendations, which may include acceptance, rejection, or requests for revision, either minor or major.

7. Editorial Decision Making

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all reviewer reports before reaching a decision. If reviewer opinions differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further input.

8. Communication of the Decision

The editorial decision, along with anonymized reviewer comments, is communicated to the author. Reviewers are also informed of the outcome of the review process.

9. Final Processing

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing and publication. Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the authors with constructive feedback to guide improvements. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted for further evaluation. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the editor, while major revisions are typically reviewed again by the reviewers. Once finalized, accepted articles are published online and made freely accessible in downloadable format.