Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

We adhere to a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scholarly integrity, scientific rigor, and ethical publication practices. Every manuscript submitted undergoes a structured editorial and peer evaluation before it is accepted for publication. This process is designed to support authors through constructive feedback while ensuring that published work is accurate, original, and relevant to the journal's scope.

1. Editorial Screening

After initial submission, each manuscript is screened by the Editor or a designated Managing Editor to assess:

  • Scope alignment with the journal

  • Adherence to author guidelines and formatting

  • Plagiarism and originality check

  • Ethical compliance (e.g., IRB approval for research involving human subjects)

Manuscripts that do not meet these initial criteria may be rejected without external review (“desk rejection”), with feedback provided to the author.

2. Assignment to Handling Editor

If a manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to a Handling Editor with subject expertise, who coordinates the peer review process, selects appropriate reviewers, and manages all editorial correspondence with the authors.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

The  Editor identifies at least two expert reviewers in the manuscript’s disciplinary area. All reviewers:

  • Must be independent of the authors and their institutions

  • Must have no conflicts of interest

  • They are selected based on relevant expertise and prior scholarly contributions

  • You are asked to confirm availability and declare potential conflicts before review begins

Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, and vice versa, to ensure objectivity (double-blind review).

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess submissions based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Clarity of problem statement and research questions

  • Appropriateness and rigor of methodology

  • Quality and analysis of data

  • Strength and validity of conclusions

  • Adherence to ethical standards

  • Appropriate and sufficient engagement with current literature

Each reviewer submits a confidential report to the editor and comments for the authors, along with a recommendation:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer evaluations and their judgment, the Handling Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who issues the final decision. Authors are notified of the decision, along with the reviewer's comments. For revisions, authors must submit a detailed response to each reviewer's comment.

If major revisions are requested, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. Minor modifications are typically reviewed only by the editor.

6. Appeals Process

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection must submit a written appeal outlining the scientific rationale for reconsideration. Appeals are not accepted by phone or informal communication and should not include personal or emotional arguments.

The editorial team reviews appeals, and when appropriate, a reassessment may involve the original reviewers and/or additional experts. However:

  • Appeals must identify specific errors in the review or editorial process

  • The decision to consult new reviewers is at the discretion of the editorial team

  • Authors must not submit the same manuscript elsewhere during an active appeal

All appeal decisions are final, and authors will be notified of the outcome in writing.

7. Post-Acceptance and Copyediting

Once accepted, manuscripts undergo professional copyediting to improve readability, clarity, and consistency.

  • Authors receive a copy-edited version for approval before typesetting

  • Final page proofs (e-proofs) are provided for author verification

  • Only one designated author communicates corrections on behalf of all co-authors

  • At this stage, authors confirm all names, affiliations, and acknowledgments

The final, formatted article is published online and included in the next available issue.

8. Peer Reviewer Recognition

We acknowledge the essential contribution of reviewers by offering:

  • Annual reviewer acknowledgments in the journal

  • Optional listing of reviewers’ names (with consent) upon article publication

  • Certificates of service or letters of recognition for academic records

Reviewers may also be invited to participate in special issues, serve on the editorial board, or attend training sessions.

9. Review Timeline

  • Initial editorial screening: ~1 week

  • Peer review: 4–6 weeks

  • Decision and revision: 2–4 weeks (depending on author responsiveness)

  • We strive to make initial decisions within 6–8 weeks and to publish accepted articles within 12–16 weeks of submission.

10. Commitment to Ethical Review

All reviewers and editors are expected to follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, including confidentiality, impartiality, respect, and accountability. Reviewers must disclose any ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, unethical methodology) during their evaluation.