All papers are subject to a single-blind peer-review process. The journal is committed to the highest standards of peer review. After submitting the manuscript by the author(s) in the journal management system, the manuscript will be primarily studied based on publishing experts (maximum a week). (Please study carefully the guide for authors to expedite set up the manuscript as precise as codification guidelines in the system and then submit it). If it is accepted in the first stage, the manuscript will be assessed by the editor-in-chief.
The manuscript will be sent to at least two referees and a reply may be expected at the earliest four weeks after submission. Manuscripts can be accepted, with minor or major revision, or rejected. If the decision is ‘revision’, the authors are requested to take the remarks of the referees and editors into account. A second reviewing process can follow. Upon final acceptance, the authors provide a final version of the manuscript inappropriate file formats and send these to the editor-in-chief. The authors will then be notified when the paper will be published. Only one galley proof will be sent as a PDF file to the corresponding author. This proof must be carefully corrected and sent back within 2 working days.
A weekly email will be submitted to the reviewers and the paper will be given back due to lack of paper review after one month, then it will be sent to another reviewer. The duration of the publish process (in case of final approval by reviewers) varies based on the level of the requested modification, the viewpoints of reviewers, the accuracy and speed of the modifications done by authors. The paper will be sent to two reviewers, then the review process of the paper is as follows:
If two reviewers reject a paper, it will be disapproved
If the opinion of the two reviews is the total revision of the paper, the paper will be submitted to the author for revision
If a reviewer's opinion is a general revision and the second one rejects the paper, the essay will be submitted to the third reviewer and according to his idea relevant to the first and second item, the decision will be made.
When the author modified the paper and submitted it, the paper would be given to another reviewer for comparative assessment.
