Peer Review Process

This journal operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest scientific quality and integrity of published articles.

1. Review Workflow & Evaluation

Double-Blind Policy: The identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, and the identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers throughout the process.
Initial Screening: Manuscripts may be rejected without peer review by the Editor-in-Chief if they do not comply with the submission guidelines or fall outside the journal's scope.
Manuscript Editor Check: The manuscript editor checks the scientific level and plagiarism ratio. If deemed insufficient, a “reject” decision is made and sent back to the Editor-in-Chief. If deemed high quality, one or more referees are invited.
Referee Recommendations: Referees recommend minor revision, major revision, acceptance without revision, or rejection. Based on these reports, the manuscript editor directs the revisions or forwards the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision.

Authors must provide a detailed response to reviewers’ comments, citing the exact line number and changes made to facilitate quick verification by the editor.
Revisions that do not meet these detailing requirements will be sent back to authors with a request for corrections and resubmission.
Some articles may undergo two or three rounds of peer review before the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.

After a manuscript is accepted (once referee-recommended revisions are complete), authors are not permitted to make changes that constitute departures from the accepted manuscript.
Before publication, galley proofs are sent to the authors for final corrections.
Mistakes or omissions resulting from the journal's negligence during final printing will be rectified in an errata section in a later issue. This policy does not cover errors left uncorrected by the author in the galley proof.

All contributions are typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. The expected timeline is as follows:

Initial Examination: ~1 week for the editor to check the manuscript's scope and adherence to instructions.
Reviewer Turnaround: Reviewers are asked to return comments within 2 weeks. A reminder is sent for an additional 1-week extension if delayed.
Author Turnaround: Authors are expected to return the corrected version within 2 weeks of receiving reviewer comments.
Final Decision: After receiving the corrected version, an acceptance letter is sent if approved. The Editor-in-Chief's decision regarding acceptance or rejection is final.