1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

Once a manuscript is submitted to our journal, it undergoes a comprehensive initial screening conducted by the editorial office. This stage is vital in determining whether the paper fits within the scope of the journal, adheres to submission guidelines, and meets basic academic and ethical standards. Submissions are checked for completeness, format compliance, originality (via plagiarism detection tools), and relevance to the journal’s thematic scope. If the manuscript does not meet these criteria, it may be desk-rejected at this stage with feedback, allowing authors to revise and resubmit accordingly. For manuscripts that pass the initial screening, the handling editor conducts a preliminary evaluation to assess the scientific value, clarity of writing, and methodological soundness. The editor may also consider the novelty of the research question, the robustness of the data analysis, and the quality of the conclusions drawn. At this stage, the manuscript is either moved forward to peer review or returned to the author with suggestions for improvement. This internal filtering process ensures that peer reviewers receive only manuscripts that merit in-depth evaluation, thereby respecting their time and maintaining an efficient review pipeline.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review: Anonymity and Fairness

Our journal operates under a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process. This model is designed to reduce bias and promote objective evaluation based solely on the merit of the research. Once the manuscript enters the review phase, the editor assigns it to two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research credentials, and previous performance as fair and thorough assessors. Reviewers are asked to evaluate several critical dimensions of the manuscript, including the clarity and originality of the research question, the rigor and appropriateness of the methodology, the validity of results, the logic of interpretation, and the overall significance of the contribution to the existing body of knowledge. They are encouraged to provide detailed, structured feedback that addresses both strengths and areas needing improvement. Reviewers are also expected to flag any ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, or suspected misconduct. The double-blind process fosters a culture of academic impartiality and encourages reviewers to offer honest, thoughtful critiques without the influence of reputational bias. In turn, authors are more likely to receive fair and actionable suggestions that enhance the quality and impact of their work. Reviewers are given two to three weeks to complete their evaluations, and extensions may be granted when necessary to preserve the quality of the feedback.

3. Editorial Decision, Revisions, and Final Outcome

After receiving the peer review reports, the handling editor carefully evaluates the reviewers’ recommendations and synthesizes them into a final editorial decision. Decisions may fall into several categories: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. In most cases, even well-conceived manuscripts require some revision to address reviewer comments or improve clarity and presentation. Authors are provided with a consolidated decision letter, which includes reviewers’ anonymous comments and specific editorial instructions. When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response letter, explaining how each point raised by the reviewers has been addressed. Authors may respectfully rebut certain comments if justified with clear rationale and evidence. The revised submission is typically sent back to the original reviewers for a second evaluation, especially if major changes were made. This iterative loop may continue until the editor is satisfied that all concerns have been adequately addressed. Once the manuscript meets the standards of scholarly excellence and all queries have been resolved, it is accepted for publication. The final manuscript then undergoes copyediting, typesetting, and proof review before being published online and indexed in relevant academic databases. Throughout this entire process, communication is maintained transparently, and the editorial office remains accessible for author queries and support. Our peer review model is not only a mechanism for quality control but also a professional development opportunity for both authors and reviewers. By participating in this process, contributors engage in a collaborative effort to enhance the rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of scientific communication. We are deeply committed to maintaining an inclusive, ethical, and timely review process that reflects the values of academic integrity and scholarly excellence.

Back