Editorial Procedure and Peer Review
This journal follow a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific validity of published research. Publication ethics and malpractice policies are guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines.
Initial Checks
All submitted manuscripts are first checked by the Editorial Office to determine whether they:
- Are correctly formatted and complete
- Comply with the journal’s ethical policies
- Fall within the scope of the journal
- Meet basic scientific and technical standards
Manuscripts that do not meet ethical or scope requirements may be rejected prior to peer review. Incomplete or improperly prepared submissions may be returned to authors for revision and resubmission.
After this initial screening, suitable manuscripts are assigned to an Editor for further evaluation and potential peer review. At this stage, no judgment is made on the significance or impact of the work.
Peer Review
All manuscripts, including invited papers, undergo a strict peer-review process. After passing initial checks, each manuscript is assigned to a handling editor, who manages the review process and selects independent reviewers.
At least two independent experts, not affiliated with the journal’s editorial board, evaluate each manuscript. The peer-review process is typically double-blind, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
Authors may be invited to revise their manuscript (minor or major revisions) based on reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review before a final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor.
Review comments are confidential and must not be disclosed or used outside the review process without permission.
Editors may consider reviewer suggestions provided by authors; however, all selected reviewers must be free of conflicts of interest. Individuals who have collaborated with the authors within the past two years or who are affiliated with the same institution are generally not eligible to review.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations
- Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and its contents
- Not copy, share, or use unpublished material for personal advantage
- Clearly justify their assessments and recommendations
- Declare any conflicts of interest
- Inform the editor of any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism or misconduct
Editorial Decisions
Editorial decisions are based on at least two independent reviewer reports and may include the following outcomes:
Accept
The manuscript is accepted with no or minimal changes.
Minor Revisions
The manuscript is accepted pending minor revisions. Authors are typically required to respond to comments and submit a revised version within a short timeframe.
Major Revisions
The manuscript requires substantial revision and may be subject to another round of peer review after resubmission.
Reject
The manuscript is rejected due to significant methodological flaws, lack of originality, or insufficient contribution to the field.
Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, of insufficient quality, or contain invalid results. To ensure fairness and impartiality, editors do not act as external reviewers for manuscripts they handle.
If authors fail to respond within the required timeframe, the submission may be considered inactive and withdrawn from the review process. Authors may resubmit the manuscript; however, it will be treated as a new submission and may undergo full peer review again.