Editorial & Peer Review Process
Editorial & Peer Review Process:
The journal follows a structured, transparent, and rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly relevance of all submitted manuscripts. The process is outlined below:
1. Submission of Manuscript
Authors are required to submit their manuscripts through the journal’s designated online submission system. Submissions must conform to the journal’s formatting and author guidelines. Submissions via email are only accepted under exceptional circumstances.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon receipt, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary assessment to ensure that the manuscript complies with formatting, structural, and ethical requirements. A plagiarism detection check is also conducted at this stage. Manuscripts failing to meet basic requirements may be returned to the author without review.
3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC)
The Editor-in-Chief assesses the manuscript for relevance, novelty, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria for scholarly contribution or thematic fit may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).
4. Assignment to Associate or Section Editor
If deemed suitable, the manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor or Section Editor with expertise in the subject area, who will manage the peer review process.
5. Selection and Invitation of Peer Reviewers
The handling editor invites qualified external reviewers with subject-matter expertise. A minimum of two reviewers is typically required; however, this number may vary depending on the nature of the submission. All reviews are conducted under a double-blind model, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
6. Peer Review Process
Invited reviewers assess the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, methodology, ethical standards, and relevance. Reviewers provide a structured critique along with a recommendation to:
The handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes a recommendation to the EiC, who makes the final decision. In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further input.
8. Communication of Decision
Authors receive a formal decision letter, including anonymized reviewer comments. If revisions are requested, authors are encouraged to address all reviewer concerns and submit a revised version within the specified timeframe.
9. Revised Submission and Re-review
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, especially in the case of major revisions. Minor revisions may be assessed solely by the handling editor.
10. Final Acceptance and Production
Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, including copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. The corresponding author is given an opportunity to review proofs before final publication.
Note: The journal reserves the right to make editorial decisions in accordance with ethical publishing practices and may withdraw manuscripts at any stage if ethical misconduct is identified.
The journal follows a structured, transparent, and rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly relevance of all submitted manuscripts. The process is outlined below:
1. Submission of Manuscript
Authors are required to submit their manuscripts through the journal’s designated online submission system. Submissions must conform to the journal’s formatting and author guidelines. Submissions via email are only accepted under exceptional circumstances.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon receipt, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary assessment to ensure that the manuscript complies with formatting, structural, and ethical requirements. A plagiarism detection check is also conducted at this stage. Manuscripts failing to meet basic requirements may be returned to the author without review.
3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC)
The Editor-in-Chief assesses the manuscript for relevance, novelty, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria for scholarly contribution or thematic fit may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).
4. Assignment to Associate or Section Editor
If deemed suitable, the manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor or Section Editor with expertise in the subject area, who will manage the peer review process.
5. Selection and Invitation of Peer Reviewers
The handling editor invites qualified external reviewers with subject-matter expertise. A minimum of two reviewers is typically required; however, this number may vary depending on the nature of the submission. All reviews are conducted under a double-blind model, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
6. Peer Review Process
Invited reviewers assess the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, methodology, ethical standards, and relevance. Reviewers provide a structured critique along with a recommendation to:
- Accept
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
- Reject
The handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes a recommendation to the EiC, who makes the final decision. In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further input.
8. Communication of Decision
Authors receive a formal decision letter, including anonymized reviewer comments. If revisions are requested, authors are encouraged to address all reviewer concerns and submit a revised version within the specified timeframe.
9. Revised Submission and Re-review
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, especially in the case of major revisions. Minor revisions may be assessed solely by the handling editor.
10. Final Acceptance and Production
Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, including copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. The corresponding author is given an opportunity to review proofs before final publication.
Note: The journal reserves the right to make editorial decisions in accordance with ethical publishing practices and may withdraw manuscripts at any stage if ethical misconduct is identified.