Peer Review

All journals published by our press employ a rigorous peer review system to ensure fairness, objectivity, and the highest academic quality. We operate a double-anonymous review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the review, minimizing potential bias and safeguarding the integrity of editorial decisions.

Submission and initial screening

  • Scope and compliance check: Every submission is first evaluated by the editorial office for relevance to the journal’s scope and compliance with submission guidelines.

  • Basic requirements: Manuscripts that do not meet fundamental standards (e.g., formatting, originality, or fit with the journal’s aims) may be returned to authors without external review.

Reviewer assignment

  • Selection of experts: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with subject-matter expertise.

  • Criteria for selection: Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and their ability to maintain confidentiality.

Double-anonymous review

  • Identity protection: Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are hidden from reviewers.

  • Manuscript anonymization: Authors are required to anonymize their manuscripts prior to submission (removing names, affiliations, and acknowledgments). The editorial office provides additional anonymization if needed.

Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts on the following grounds:

  • Originality: Novelty of the research and its contribution to the field.

  • Scientific rigor: Soundness of the methodology, analysis, and interpretation.

  • Relevance: Alignment of the study with the journal’s scope and academic significance.

  • Clarity: Organization, coherence, and readability of the manuscript.

  • Ethical standards: Adherence to academic integrity, ethical guidelines, and proper citation practices.

Reviewer recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Major revisions required (resubmit for further review)

  • Reject

Editorial decision

  • The editorial team considers the reviewers’ comments and recommendations before making the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

  • Authors receive constructive feedback designed to strengthen their work, even if the manuscript is not accepted.

Revisions and re-review

  • Revision process: Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer’s comments.

  • Re-review: Whenever possible, revised versions are returned to the original reviewers; if necessary, new reviewers may be invited.

Peer review timeline

  • Typical duration: The initial review is generally completed within 4–6 weeks of submission.

  • Variation: Timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

Reviewer ethics and confidentiality

  • Conflict of interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts before accepting a review invitation.

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed outside the review process.

Appeals and complaints

  • Right to appeal: Authors who wish to contest an editorial decision may submit a detailed appeal.

  • Independent review: Appeals are handled by senior editors or independent reviewers to ensure transparency and fairness.

Commitment to quality

This policy reflects our commitment to upholding rigorous academic standards, ensuring a transparent and fair review process, and fostering constructive dialogue within the scholarly community.