Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to this journal undergo a rigorous and fair double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, validity, and relevance of the published articles.

Review Procedure

1. Initial Screening
   The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board conduct an initial evaluation to assess the manuscript’s suitability in terms of scope, originality, academic quality, and compliance with author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review.

2. Plagiarism Check
   All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels will be returned to authors for revision or rejected.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review
   Eligible manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure objectivity and impartiality.

4. Review Decision
   Based on reviewers’ evaluations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

   • Accept

   • Minor Revision

   • Major Revision

   • Reject

5. Revision Stage
   Authors are required to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ comments and resubmit within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by reviewers if necessary.

6. Final Decision
   The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial considerations.

Review Timeline

The average review process takes 4–8 weeks, depending on the availability of reviewers and the number of revision rounds.

Ethical Standards

This journal adheres strictly to publication ethics, confidentiality, and conflict of interest principles. Reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and confidentially.