Peer Review Policy

1. Editorial Screening

The Editorial Board examines each manuscript for alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with manuscript requirements, preliminary academic quality, research ethics, and content overlap. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are normally desk rejected by the Editor within seven days of receipt.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the content of the manuscript. Each reviewer must be affiliated with a different institution, and none may be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, and evaluate manuscripts fairly and on academic grounds. This policy applies to all article types, including invited academic articles.

3. Decisions and Timeline

Decisions are classified into four categories: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Reject. The journal normally completes the process from manuscript receipt to final decision within four months. This timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and the complexity of the manuscript. Authors will be informed if the process extends beyond the stated timeframe. Authors requested to revise a manuscript must submit the revised version together with a point-by-point response within the period specified by the journal.

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the manuscript, and the authors’ responses. When reviewer assessments differ substantially, the Editor may appoint a third reviewer or seek additional advice from an editor or Editorial Board member with relevant expertise. Editorial decisions are not determined solely by a tally of reviewer recommendations.

5. Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision when they believe that a significant error has occurred in the review process, interpretation of facts, or handling of conflicts of interest. Appeals must include clear reasons and supporting evidence and must be submitted within the period specified by the journal. Disagreement with an academic opinion alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal. The appeal will be considered by an editor or Editorial Board member who was not involved in the original decision, and the outcome of the appeal will be final.

6. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

When an editor or Editorial Board member is an author of, or has a conflict of interest involving, a submitted manuscript, that individual must withdraw from all stages of the review process and must not have access to information concerning the manuscript’s review. The manuscript will be handled and decided upon by another editor or Editorial Board member who has no conflict of interest.