Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to this journal undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure academic quality and research integrity. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.
Initial Screening
Each submission is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor to assess its relevance to the journal’s scope, basic methodological quality, and compliance with ethical standards. Plagiarism screening is conducted using tools such as Turnitin or iThenticate. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria are rejected without external review.
Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to a Handling Editor and sent to at least two independent reviewers. The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity of analysis, and its contribution to the field. Reviewers conduct their assessment in accordance with the Reviewer Guidelines established by the journal.
Review Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial decision may be:
- Accept without revision
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject
In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be appointed. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
Revision Stage
Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit a detailed response-to-reviewers document. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review.
Final Decision and Publication
Once the manuscript meets the journal’s academic and ethical standards, it is accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, proofreading, and final approval by the authors before publication. All published articles are assigned a DOI through CrossRef.
Review Timeline
The average time for the peer review process is approximately 2-6 weeks from the completion of the initial screening.
