Peer Review Policy

Our journal ensures that every manuscript submitted is evaluated with rigor, fairness, and objectivity, supporting the maintenance of high scientific integrity and ethical standards. Authors benefit from constructive feedback aimed at enhancing their work's quality and impact.

Editorial Evaluation:
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts a preliminary review to determine if the manuscript aligns with the journal's thematic scope, holds potential interest for our readers, and fulfills the basic submission requirements.

Peer Review Process:
Manuscripts that meet editorial standards proceed to the single-blind peer review phase, wherein they are scrutinized by at least two independent reviewers who are subject matter experts. In the single-blind model, the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but authors are not privy to the identity of their reviewers. This ensures an unbiased evaluation from the authors’ perspective, centering the assessment on the scientific value, novelty, importance, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Reviewer Selection:
Reviewers are chosen based on their subject matter expertise, experience, and absence of any direct conflicts of interest with the work in question. Our journal is dedicated to a fair review process, albeit the reviewers' awareness of the authors’ identities, expecting that evaluations are impartial and solely based on academic merit.

Reviewer Guidelines:
The reviewers receive comprehensive guidelines highlighting the review process and the criteria for manuscript appraisal. Despite knowing the authors' identities, reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive feedback to foster the progression of scholarly work.

Reviewer Feedback:
Detailed and constructive feedback is a cornerstone of the single-blind review, emphasizing the manuscript's strengths and areas for enhancement without bias. Reviewers' insights are shared with the authors alongside a summarization of the editorial decision.

Author Response:
Authors are invited to respond to reviewers' comments thoroughly and are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the feedback received. Authors should address each comment in a point-by-point fashion and explain how the revisions have been implemented.

Editorial Decision:
Based on the reviewers' feedback, the authors' revisions, and the editor's own judgment, a final decision to accept, reject, or request further revisions is made. This verdict, along with additional feedback or directions, is communicated to the authors to close the review process.