Peer Review Process

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

  • Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscript through the journal's online system, ensuring it adheres to the journal's focus, scope, and Author Guidelines.

  • Technical Check: The Editorial Office performs a preliminary check to confirm the manuscript's adherence to all technical requirements, including formatting, completeness of figures and tables, and mandatory declarations.

  • Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review): The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or a designated Section Editor evaluates the manuscript for its suitability, originality, scientific merit, and relevance to the journal's scope.

  • Plagiarism Check: All submitted manuscripts undergo screening for similarity/plagiarism using detection software (e.g., Turnitin). Manuscripts exceeding the acceptable similarity index are subject to immediate rejection.

  • Outcome of Screening:

    • Proceed to Review: Manuscripts meeting all initial criteria are forwarded for peer review.

    • Return for Revision: Manuscripts with minor technical or formatting issues are returned to the author for immediate correction.

    • Desk Rejection: Manuscripts deemed outside the journal's scope, lacking sufficient scientific merit, or exhibiting high plagiarism are rejected without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Reviewer Assignment: The assigned Editor selects a minimum of two independent expert reviewers who are knowledgeable in the relevant field. The journal uses a double-blind review system, meaning the identities of the author(s) and the reviewer(s) are kept confidential from each other throughout the process.

  • Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers are requested to provide detailed, objective, and constructive feedback on several key aspects, including:

    • Originality and Significance of the research.

    • Methodological Soundness and data validity.

    • Clarity of Presentation and academic language use.

    • Adequacy of Literature Review and referencing.

    • Ethical Compliance, where applicable.

  • Review Completion: Reviewers submit their report and a recommendation to the Editor within a stipulated timeframe.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the Editor's own assessment, the EIC makes the final decision on the manuscript. The possible decisions are:

Decision Action Required
Accept as is The manuscript is accepted for publication with no further changes required.
Accepted with Minor Revisions Authors must address all minor issues raised by the reviewers and editor within a short timeframe. The revised manuscript is usually checked by the Editor.
Accepted with Major Revisions Authors must conduct substantial revisions to address critical flaws identified by the reviewers. The revised manuscript is typically sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.
Reject The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal, even after major revisions, often due to fundamental flaws or lack of novelty/significance.

4. Final Stages

  • Author Revision: Authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a Response to Reviewers document detailing how each comment was addressed, highlighting the changes made.

  • Re-evaluation (if applicable): For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the manuscript goes through another round of review by the original peer reviewers.

  • Acceptance and Production: Once the manuscript is officially accepted, it enters the production phase, which includes copyediting, proofreading, and layout before being scheduled for publication.