This journal operates a Double-Blind Peer Review process, meaning that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
Peer Review Stages:
- Initial Editorial Evaluation:The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the submitted manuscript for alignment with the journal’s aims, structure, and submission guidelines.
- Manuscript Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial check are sent to at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field.
- Expert Review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide recommendations (accept, revise, or reject).
- Editorial Decision: The editorial board makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and communicates the result to the author.
- Revision Opportunity (if needed): Authors are requested to address comments and revise the manuscript as required.
- Final Acceptance and Publication: After satisfactory revision and final approval, the manuscript is accepted and scheduled for publication.
Timeline:
The average peer review period is between 1 to 2 months (this may be extended in special cases).
Reviewer Selection Criteria:
Reviewers are chosen from among reputable researchers and academics who have expertise in the relevant subject area.
Ethical Principles:
The peer review process is conducted in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Confidentiality is strictly maintained and any conflicts of interest are thoroughly assessed.