Peer-review Policy

The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and academic rigor. Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess relevance, originality, and compliance with journal guidelines. Suitable manuscripts are then assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The double-blind review process ensures that reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identities.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific quality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field. The journal is committed to a timely and rigorous peer-review process, and editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to cooperate efficiently to ensure that the review and final decision are completed within a maximum of 56 days (8 weeks) from submission.

The timelines for the various stages of manuscript processing are shown below:

• Acknowledgement within 24 hours after submission
• Initial editorial screening within 7 days after acknowledgement
• Peer review process within 14 days after initial editorial screening
• Author revision period within 7–14 days after editorial feedback
  • Minor revision: up to 7 days
  • Major revision: up to 14 days
• Final editorial decision within 7 days after resubmission
• Copyediting and layout preparation within 7 days after final editorial decision
• Author’s proof approval and online publication within 7 days after sharing galley proof

Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential. Reviewers must bring to the attention of any information that may be reason to reject publication of a manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide their edits and comments in a respectful, clear, constructive and unbiased manner using a clear language. The reviewers’ written feedback should also avoid any personal criticism and offensive language that may deter the peer review process and harm the scientific community.