The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, editorial rigor, and transparency in the peer review process. All submissions undergo a structured, objective, and confidential evaluation by qualified experts to ensure the accuracy, originality, and scholarly merit of the work. This policy outlines the principles, procedures, and responsibilities governing peer review in accordance with international best practices and ethical standards, including COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
The journal follows a double-blind peer review model. Identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.
Manuscripts are reviewed solely based on academic merit, free from institutional, national, or personal bias.
Upon submission, all manuscripts are subject to initial editorial screening to verify:
Manuscripts that fail to meet these fundamental criteria are rejected without external review.
Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise, publication history, and prior reviewing experience.
Individuals with known conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or personal) related to the manuscript are excluded.
Reviewers must agree to:
Each manuscript is evaluated based on:
Reviewers provide constructive, evidence-based assessments and recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Final editorial decisions rest solely with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editors, based on reviewer feedback and editorial assessment.
In cases of conflicting reviews, a third independent review may be solicited.
The editorial board retains discretion to override reviewer recommendations if warranted by ethical, legal, or scholarly considerations.
All submitted content and correspondence are treated as confidential intellectual property.
Reviewer identities and reports are not disclosed to authors, co-reviewers, or third parties without explicit consent.
The journal complies with applicable data protection regulations, including GDPR, for handling personal and scholarly information.
Allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship disputes) raised during peer review are investigated following COPE protocols.
Reviewers or editors who identify ethical concerns must report them promptly to the editorial office.
The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward fraudulent or coercive practices in peer review.
Peer review is voluntary and unremunerated. Reviewers are formally acknowledged through confidential records and eligible for editorial appointments based on sustained contributions.
The journal prohibits:
Authors may submit a formal, written appeal if they believe a decision was procedurally or factually flawed.
Appeals are reviewed by a separate editorial panel. Reviewer anonymity and editorial independence are preserved during this process.
Complaints about editorial or peer review conduct must be submitted with documented evidence and are adjudicated under the journal’s ethics and malpractice policy.
Peer review policies are periodically reviewed to ensure alignment with evolving standards in scholarly communication.
Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editorial board members is incorporated to strengthen process transparency and procedural fairness.