Peer Review Process

This journal applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process. Each submitted manuscript undergoes a rigorous review process to ensure that it meets the journal’s academic and publication standards.

1. Initial Screening (Desk Evaluation)

The process begins with an initial administrative and editorial screening conducted by the editor. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for its alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, compliance with author guidelines, plagiarism level, and completeness of the required supporting documents.

Manuscripts that do not meet the initial criteria may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection) or returned to the authors for necessary improvements before proceeding to peer review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Under the double-blind review system, neither the authors nor the reviewers are informed of each other’s identities. This arrangement is intended to promote independent and impartial evaluation.

3. Peer Review

Reviewers conduct a substantive evaluation of the manuscript, including:

• originality and significance of the contribution;
• relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
• appropriateness of the methodology;
• consistency and validity of the analysis;
• clarity of presentation; and
• adequacy and relevance of references.

Based on their assessment, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without Revision
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewers also provide comments, corrections, and recommendations for improvement, which are submitted to the editor.

4. Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers’ recommendations and makes an editorial decision to accept, request revision, or reject the manuscript.

If the reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may appoint an additional reviewer to obtain a more objective assessment.

5. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a Response to Reviewers document explaining the revisions made and addressing each reviewer’s comment.

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the editor may send the revised manuscript back to the reviewers for further evaluation. Minor revisions may generally be assessed by the editor.

6. Final Decision

Once the revisions have been satisfactorily completed, the editor makes the final decision regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.

A manuscript may still be rejected if it fails to meet the journal’s academic standards or if the authors fail to complete the required revisions within the specified deadline.

7. Editing and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the editing and proofreading stage, which includes language improvement, formatting, layout, and compliance with the journal’s publication template.

Authors are given an opportunity to check the final version of their manuscripts before publication.

8. Publication

After the final version has been approved, the article is published in the appropriate journal issue according to the journal’s publication schedule.

Through this process, the journal is committed to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publications while ensuring a transparent, fair, and accountable peer-review and publication process.