Manuscript Assessment

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and ethical publishing. In line with the principles and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), all manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous, fair, and confidential peer-review process.

Peer review plays a vital role in ensuring the originality, validity, relevance, and scholarly contribution of published research. Every submission is evaluated objectively, and no manuscript is accepted for publication without the successful completion of the peer-review process. More Details Regarding to COPE Guidelines.

Peer Review Model

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and ethical publishing. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous peer-review process conducted in accordance with the principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The purpose of peer review is to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly value of published research. No manuscript is accepted for publication without successfully completing the peer-review process.

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This model is designed to promote impartial evaluation, reduce potential bias, and ensure that manuscripts are assessed solely on their academic merit.

All communications between authors, reviewers, and editors are handled confidentially, and unpublished material disclosed during the review process is not used for personal advantage.

Review Process Overview

Manuscript Submission

Authors are required to submit their manuscripts through the journal’s official online submission system or designated submission email, in accordance with the journal’s Author Guidelines. Submissions must be complete, original, and properly formatted at the time of submission.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial office to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the scope and aims of the journal

  • Demonstrates originality and scholarly relevance

  • Meets basic methodological and academic standards

  • Complies with ethical requirements and formatting guidelines

Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be desk rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with appropriate subject knowledge. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers conduct a detailed and critical evaluation of the manuscript, focusing on:

  • Originality, novelty, and contribution to the field

  • Scientific or methodological rigor

  • Accuracy and clarity of analysis and interpretation

  • Organization, language quality, and presentation

  • Relevance of references and conclusions

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback to assist both the editors in decision-making and the authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers must also disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if such conflicts exist.

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers submit detailed reports and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Major revisions required (resubmission for further review)

  • Reject

Reviewer comments and recommendations are carefully considered by the editorial team.

Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates all reviewer reports and makes an editorial decision based on the manuscript’s academic merit, ethical standards, and reviewer recommendations. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional reviewers may be consulted.

Revision by Authors

If revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • A revised version of the manuscript

  • A detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor to verify that concerns have been adequately resolved.

Final Decision and Acceptance

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the final version of the manuscript and makes the ultimate decision regarding acceptance or rejection. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.

Publication

Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to the production stage and are published online according to the journal’s publication schedule.

Review Timeline

The average peer-review process typically takes 6–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds required. While the journal strives to provide timely decisions, the priority remains on conducting a thorough, unbiased, and high-quality review.

Guidelines for Authors (Review-Related)

To facilitate an effective double-blind peer-review process, authors are required to:

  • Prepare manuscripts in clear, concise, and scholarly English

  • Submit fully anonymized manuscripts, with no identifying information in the main text

  • Upload a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, and contact details

  • Include acknowledgements, funding information, and conflict-of-interest statements only on the title page

  • Place extensive datasets, methodological details, or supplementary material in appendices or supplementary files

Failure to comply with these requirements may delay the review process.

Publication Ethics and Fairness

The journal follows strict publication ethics, accepting only original and unpublished manuscripts. All submissions are evaluated fairly based on academic merit and relevance. Reviewer comments are shared with authors to support scholarly improvement, and no publication or processing fees are charged prior to successful peer review and final acceptance. Read More..

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board oversee the peer-review and publication process to ensure consistency, transparency, and full compliance with ethical publishing standards.