Peer Review Policy

The peer review policy is intended to ensure that manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated rigorously, fairly, and objectively. The journal will strive to maintain high standards of scientific integrity and ethical conduct, and to provide authors with constructive feedback that can help improve the quality and impact of their work.

  1. Editorial evaluation: All manuscripts submitted to the journal will be first evaluated by the editorial team. This evaluation will focus on the scope of the article, its potential interest to the journal's readership, and whether it meets the journal's basic submission requirements.

  2. Peer review process: Manuscripts that pass the editorial evaluation will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the subject area. The reviewers will be asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit, originality, significance, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope.

  3. Reviewer selection: Reviewers will be selected based on their expertise and experience in the subject area of the manuscript. The journal will seek to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript.

  4. Reviewer guidelines: Reviewers will be provided with guidelines on how to review the manuscript, including the journal's expectations for the review process, and the criteria to be used in evaluating the manuscript. Reviewers will also be asked to provide constructive feedback to the authors, and to indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or revised.

  5. Reviewer feedback: Reviewers will be asked to provide detailed feedback on the manuscript, including any strengths and weaknesses, suggestions for improvement, and specific concerns. The reviewers' comments will be provided to the authors, along with a summary of the editor's decision.

  6. Author response: Authors will be given the opportunity to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript accordingly. Authors will be asked to provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, and to indicate how the revised manuscript addresses each comment.

  7. Editorial decision: The editor will make the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments, the author's response, and the editor's own evaluation. The editor's decision will be communicated to the authors, along with any additional feedback or guidance.