All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine whether they fall within the journal's scope and meet its basic requirements for scholarly quality, originality, presentation, and publication ethics.
Manuscripts that are out of scope, substantially incomplete, or unsuitable for further consideration may be rejected at this stage.
Manuscripts may be screened using appropriate similarity-detection tools and other editorial checks. Similarity reports are evaluated by editors in context; a similarity score alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.
Concerns about originality, duplicate publication, authorship, data integrity, or ethical compliance may be referred to the authors for clarification or handled under the journal's publication ethics policy.
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review model, in which authors and reviewers are not informed of each other's identities during the review process, to the extent practicable.
Before publication, the journal should specify the minimum number of independent reviewers actually required by its editorial policy. If the journal requires at least two reviewers for research articles, that requirement should be stated explicitly here and consistently applied.
Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, scientific significance, methodological soundness, validity of results, clarity, relevance to the journal, and engagement with the existing literature.
The editor responsible for the manuscript makes the editorial decision after considering the reviewers' reports and the manuscript's overall quality. Possible decisions include rejection, revision, or acceptance.
Receiving favorable reviewer reports does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the journal's authorized editor.
When revision is invited, authors should provide a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a comment is not followed, authors should provide a clear scientific justification.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.
Manuscripts under review and communications related to peer review are treated confidentially. Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage or share manuscript content without authorization.
Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and should not participate in evaluating a manuscript when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartiality. An alternative editor or reviewer may be appointed where appropriate.
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal of an editorial decision by contacting the journal through its official editorial contact address. Appeals should identify specific factual errors, procedural concerns, or substantive grounds for reconsideration.
Appeals are considered by an editor who is not in a position of conflict. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.
Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, relevance, research integrity, and the journal's published policies. Commercial, institutional, or personal interests must not improperly influence editorial decisions.
The journal aims to conduct peer review fairly, confidentially, and consistently with its published standards.