Peer Review Process
Editorial office checks for formatting and conducts Plagiarism Screening (Similarity Check).
Editor assesses Scope, Novelty, and Methodology.
(Outcome: Pass to Review OR Desk Reject)
Manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts.
Criteria: Originality, Rigor, Contribution, and Ethics.
Authors address reviewer comments. Editor makes final decision.
(Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject)
Copyediting, Typesetting, Proofreading, and Online Publication.
Review Policy Details
The stage durations above are estimates, not a guarantee. Reviewer availability, the scope of revisions and additional ethical checks may affect timing. Authors should follow the deadline in the decision letter and contact the editorial office if an extension is needed.
Eligible research submissions normally receive double-anonymous review by at least two independent experts. Editors evaluate the reports and authors’ responses before deciding whether further review, revision, acceptance or rejection is appropriate.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their specific expertise (typically PhD level), recent publication record, and the absence of any conflict of interest with the authors.
Ethical Oversight
Reviewers and editors must declare any potential conflicts of interest. The process is confidential. Reviewers must not use any data from the manuscript before publication.
Appeals Process
Authors who believe that their manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding may submit a formal appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal should identify the decision and specific grounds, with supporting evidence. An editor without a relevant conflict will assess the request.