1. Upholding Openness in Editorial Decision-Making

In scholarly publishing, editorial transparency is the foundation of trust and credibility. At our journal, we uphold a fully transparent editorial workflow from submission to publication. Manuscripts are evaluated based on scholarly merit alone—without discrimination based on the authors’ institutional affiliations, nationality, or background. Our editorial board follows a strict protocol that outlines the scope, objectives, and evaluation criteria for every submission received. These guidelines are made publicly available to ensure authors are well informed about the process and can prepare their manuscripts accordingly. All editorial decisions—whether a paper is accepted, revised, or rejected—are well-documented and supported by clear reasoning grounded in reviewer comments and journal standards. We publish details about the peer review model employed (e.g., single-blind, double-blind, or open peer review) and outline the average timeline for each stage of the review process. This level of disclosure allows authors to anticipate and understand the flow of their submissions. Furthermore, any change in the status of a manuscript is promptly communicated to the author through our secure submission platform. Our commitment to openness extends to the post-publication phase, where we publicly acknowledge errata, corrections, or retractions and clearly explain the basis for such decisions.

2. Peer Review Ethics and Reviewer Accountability

The integrity of peer review directly influences the scholarly quality of a journal. Therefore, our journal ensures that reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic experience, and a commitment to ethical conduct. Each reviewer receives a detailed guideline outlining the expected ethical practices, including confidentiality, objectivity, and constructive criticism. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if impartiality cannot be guaranteed. This prevents personal biases from influencing the review outcome and ensures that feedback is fair and evidence-based. To maintain accountability, editors oversee the quality and tone of all reviewer reports. Reviews that do not adhere to our guidelines—such as unsubstantiated judgments or dismissive language—are either revised or discarded. In addition, reviewers are encouraged to disclose if the paper they are evaluating resembles another published work, enabling the editorial board to investigate potential cases of duplication or plagiarism. This structured review system helps the editorial team make balanced decisions and fosters a transparent scholarly environment where the contributions of all parties—authors, reviewers, and editors—are documented and respected.

3. Transparent Editorial Governance and Board Composition

Editorial transparency also includes openness about the governance structure of the journal. We maintain a publicly accessible editorial board directory, showcasing the diversity, expertise, and institutional affiliations of all members. Each board member is selected through a defined nomination and vetting process that ensures representation across disciplines, geographies, and research perspectives. Their roles—whether advisory, administrative, or content-specific—are clearly outlined, and their responsibilities are periodically reviewed. In order to mitigate editorial bias, the editor-in-chief does not act unilaterally in decision-making. Complex or contentious submissions are discussed within a team of associate editors or an ethics panel when necessary. We also encourage board members to publish ethical declarations if they handle manuscripts from their institutions or collaborators. Authors can request that specific individuals not be involved in their review if justified by potential conflicts. These practices guarantee transparency in editorial judgment and assure contributors that their work is evaluated with fairness and integrity.

Back