PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Purpose of Peer Review
The peer review process is fundamental to maintaining the scientific credibility, academic quality, and ethical integrity of the journal. Through independent expert evaluation, peer review ensures that published manuscripts meet accepted standards of scholarly rigor, originality, and relevance within their respective disciplines.
Peer Review Model
The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This system promotes impartial evaluation and minimizes the risk of bias related to authorship, institutional affiliation, or geographic location.
Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening
Upon submission, all manuscripts are first assessed by the editorial office for:
1. Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
2. Compliance with submission and formatting guidelines
3. Ethical approval and declarations, where applicable
4. Plagiarism screening using standard similarity-checking tools
Manuscripts that fail to meet these preliminary requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined prior to external peer review.
Assignment of Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to one or more independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. Editorial board members may serve as reviewers when appropriate, alongside external experts.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
1. Originality and contribution to existing knowledge
2. Scientific and methodological soundness
3. Ethical standards and research integrity
4. Clarity, organization, and quality of presentation
5. Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback aimed at improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
Reviewer Reports and Recommendations
Reviewers submit detailed evaluation reports along with one of the following recommendations:
1. Accept without revision
2. Accept with minor revisions
3. Reconsider after major revisions
4. Reject
Reviewer comments are shared with authors in an anonymized format.
Editorial Assessment and Decision
The editorial team evaluates reviewer reports and makes a decision based on the collective recommendations and the journal’s editorial standards. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor, who may seek additional reviews if necessary.
Revision Process
Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed by the original reviewer(s) or assessed by the editorial team depending on the nature of revisions.
Confidentiality and Data Protection
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not disclose or use unpublished material for personal or professional purposes.
Conflict of Interest Management
Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict is identified, the individual will be excluded from the evaluation process to preserve objectivity and transparency.
Ethical Oversight and Misconduct Handling
The journal takes allegations of ethical misconduct seriously, including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, and unethical research practices. Such cases are handled in accordance with established scholarly publishing standards, and appropriate actions are taken where necessary.
Peer Review Timeline
The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process:
1. Initial editorial assessment: 2–3 days
2. Peer review duration: 10–14 days
3. First editorial decision: within 15–21 days of submission
Timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.
Record Maintenance and Transparency
The journal maintains internal records of peer review activities for quality assurance, accountability, and audit purposes. These records may be reviewed during indexing evaluations or academic audits while maintaining confidentiality.
Continuous Improvement
The peer review process is periodically reviewed and refined to align with evolving best practices in scholarly publishing and to enhance transparency, fairness, and efficiency.
