Peer Review Process

The peer review process is a fundamental mechanism to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all manuscripts published in the journal. The journal applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review systemdesigned to provide constructive feedback to authors while maintaining high scholarly standards.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts electronically through the journal’s online submission system. Upon submission, each manuscript is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor for preliminary evaluation.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor conducts an initial assessment to evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

  • Originality and novelty

  • Scientific quality and ethical compliance

  • Clarity of presentation and structure

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope or minimum quality standards will be desk-rejected at this stage to ensure an efficient review process.

3. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise

  • Research and publication experience

  • Absence of conflicts of interest

4. Review Process

Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within 3–4 weeks. Each manuscript is assessed using the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research

  • Methodological rigor and validity

  • Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript

  • Adequacy and relevance of references

  • Contribution to theory, practice, or policy

5. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed evaluation reports, consisting of:

  • Comments for authors (constructive feedback and suggestions)

  • Confidential comments for editors (if necessary)

Each reviewer makes one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Minor revisions

  • Major revisions

  • Reject

6. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without further revisions.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes and will be reviewed by the editor.

  • Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may be re-evaluated by the original or new reviewers.

  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

7. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision decisions are required to submit a revised manuscript within 4–6 weeks, accompanied by a detailed response to reviewers’ comments explaining how each point has been addressed.

8. Final Decision

The revised manuscript is reviewed by the editor and, if necessary, by the reviewers. The editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.

9. Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which includes:

  • Copyediting

  • Typesetting

  • Proofreading

Authors are given the opportunity to review and approve the final proofs before publication. Once finalized, articles are published online and made openly accessible.

10. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts and reviewer reports are handled with strict confidentiality. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure an unbiased evaluation. All procedures comply with COPE ethical guidelines.