Peer Review Policy

Our journal operates a rigorous, independent, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the scholarly quality, originality, and integrity of all published research. In a double-blind review process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Preliminary Editorial Review

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with submission and formatting guidelines
  • Completeness of required documents and declarations
  • Basic ethical compliance, including plagiarism screening

Timeline: The preliminary review is typically completed within 7 days of submission.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary assessment are sent for double-blind peer review. Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers.

Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise
  • All reviewers must declare conflicts of interest
  • Conflicted individuals are excluded from review
  • Reviewer identities remain confidential

Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality and scholarly significance
  • Methodological rigor
  • Validity of analysis and interpretation
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity of writing
  • Quality of references

Review Timeline

The full peer review process generally takes 30–45 days depending on reviewer availability and revision rounds.

Editorial Decision

  • Accept without revisions
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit and are final.

Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential. Ethical concerns are handled according to COPE guidance and journal policies.

Appeals and Queries

Authors may submit formal appeals with supporting evidence if they believe the review process was not properly conducted.