• Home
  • Menu
  • Peer Review Process
  • Current Issue

    OpenAccess
  • Peer Review Process

    Article acceptance process:

    The evaluation process of articles is based on double-blind peer review and is carried out by at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field of research, as follows:

     

    Step 1. Initial review of the article by the executive editor of the journal:

    First, the article is reviewed for compliance with the guidelines for authors. If there are any issues with the "original article" and "authors' information" files and the required conditions and regulations of the journal are not met, the article will be returned to the author for correction or completion. Otherwise, it will be sent to the specialist editor for review.

     

    Step 2. Review of the article by the specialist editor of the journal:

    If the file is complete, after the reviewers are proposed by the specialist editor, the article is sent to the editor-in-chief for review, selection or appointment of reviewers, and ultimately obtaining permission to enter the review process.

     

    Step 3. Review of the article by the editor-in-chief of the journal:

    After the reviewers are selected or appointed by the editor-in-chief, the article is sent to them for review and evaluation, and then returned to the executive editor.

     

    Step 4. Initial review of the article by the reviewers of the journal:

    If the reviewer deems themselves suitable for reviewing the article, they will accept the review. As soon as one of the reviewers accepts the review, the status of the article changes to “under review”. If the reviewer is not willing to review the submitted article for any reason, they will decline the review and the article will be sent to another reviewer appointed by the editor-in-chief.

     

    Step 5. Thorough review of the article by the reviewers of the journal:

    After the acceptance of the review is announced, the reviewers begin to read and review the article thoroughly, and finally express their opinion within a reasonable deadline in one of the following four options: “acceptable”, “Reject”, “Need minor revision”, and “Need major revision”.

     

    Step 6. Article revision by the author:

    If the article requires revision according to the reviewers' feedback, it will be returned to the author for revision by the editor-in-chief. The author must make the necessary changes and revisions within a deadline set by the editor-in-chief. After the revision, the article must be submitted again through the system for the reviewers to review and examine the changes made. At this stage, the article may be finally approved by the reviewers or rejected. The reviewers may also request further revisions.

     

    Step 7. Receiving final feedback from the reviewers and presenting the article in the editorial board meeting of the journal:

    If the author's revisions are fully approved by the reviewers, the article will be presented for acceptance in the editorial board meeting of the journal. If the article is approved in this meeting, the acceptance certificate for the article will be issued by the editor-in-chief of the journal.