The journal applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of every published manuscript.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated through several stages, from initial editorial screening to final editorial decision.
Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Authors are required to ensure that the manuscript complies with the journal's Author Guidelines, manuscript template, ethical requirements, and submission policies.
The editorial office checks the completeness of the submission and verifies that the required metadata and manuscript files have been properly provided.
Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review.
The editors assess:
Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope
Originality and relevance of the manuscript
Academic and scholarly contribution
Clarity of the research problem and objectives
Appropriateness of the research methodology
Basic quality of analysis and discussion
Compliance with manuscript formatting requirements
Compliance with publication ethics
Potential plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected without external peer review or returned to the authors for preliminary revision.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may undergo plagiarism or similarity checking using appropriate detection tools.
The editorial team evaluates similarity results contextually and does not rely solely on a similarity percentage.
Manuscripts containing unacceptable levels of plagiarism, substantial unattributed copying, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct may be rejected.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on:
Relevant academic and research expertise
Knowledge of the manuscript's subject area
Research and publication experience
Absence of conflicts of interest
Professional and ethical standards
The editor may invite reviewers from different institutions or geographical regions when appropriate.
The journal generally applies a Double-Blind Peer Review process.
Under the double-blind review model:
The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
The identities of reviewers and authors are protected throughout the review process.
The journal may adopt another peer-review model when appropriate, provided that the applicable model is clearly stated in the journal's editorial policy.
Reviewers are generally requested to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
Originality of the research
Novelty of the argument, findings, or perspective
Contribution to existing scholarly knowledge
Relevance to the journal's scope
Clarity of the research problem
Relevance of the research questions or objectives
Consistency between the research problem and the manuscript's content
Relevance and adequacy of the literature
Use of current and authoritative scholarly sources
Appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundation
Critical engagement with previous research
Appropriateness of the research design
Clarity of the research procedures
Adequacy of data or research materials
Appropriateness of analytical methods
Transparency and methodological rigor
Ethical considerations where applicable
Clarity and accuracy of the findings
Adequacy of evidence
Quality of analysis
Consistency between findings and research objectives
Depth of interpretation
Engagement with previous research
Theoretical or conceptual implications
Practical, policy, or professional implications where relevant
Critical analysis of the findings
Consistency with the research objectives
Accuracy of the conclusions
Contribution and implications
Avoidance of unsupported claims
Organization and clarity of the manuscript
Quality of academic writing
Appropriate use of tables and figures
Accuracy and relevance of references
Consistency with the journal's citation requirements
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to the editor.
The possible recommendations generally include:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject and Resubmit
Reject
The reviewer recommendation is advisory. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editor.
After receiving the reviewers' reports, the editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewers' recommendations.
The editor may decide to:
Accept the manuscript
Request minor revisions
Request major revisions
Request further review
Reject the manuscript
The editorial decision is based on the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript, the reviewers' assessments, the author's responses to reviewer comments, and the journal's editorial standards.
When revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' and editors' comments.
Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
Where the authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a clear and academically justified explanation.
Revised manuscripts should be submitted within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions are required.
The editor may also conduct the second-round evaluation directly when the revisions are considered sufficient.
Additional rounds of review may be conducted when necessary to ensure the academic quality of the manuscript.
The editor makes the final publication decision after considering:
The quality of the manuscript
Reviewers' comments and recommendations
Authors' responses and revisions
Originality and scholarly contribution
Methodological rigor
Ethical compliance
Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope
Acceptance of a manuscript indicates that the manuscript has satisfied the journal's editorial and peer-review requirements.
All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
Share the manuscript with others without authorization
Use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit
Discuss the manuscript publicly
Copy or reproduce substantial portions of the manuscript
Use the manuscript's ideas or findings before publication
Editors and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of the peer-review process.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objective evaluation of a manuscript.
A reviewer should decline the review if they:
Have a personal or professional relationship with the authors
Have a direct academic or institutional conflict
Have a financial or other interest related to the manuscript
Believe that the conflict could compromise their impartiality
The editor may replace a reviewer when a significant conflict of interest is identified.
Reviewers are expected to:
Provide objective and constructive comments
Evaluate the manuscript fairly and professionally
Support their criticism with clear reasoning
Respect the confidentiality of the manuscript
Identify relevant published work that has not been cited where appropriate
Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism or academic misconduct
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
Reviewers should avoid personal criticism of authors and should focus their comments on the manuscript.
Editorial decisions should be based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript.
Editors should not make decisions based on:
Author nationality
Gender
Religion
Institutional affiliation
Political views
Personal relationships
Commercial interests
Other irrelevant personal characteristics
The journal is committed to maintaining editorial independence and academic integrity throughout the review process.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made based on a significant error or procedural issue may submit an appeal to the editorial office.
An appeal should:
Clearly identify the manuscript
Explain the specific grounds for appeal
Provide evidence supporting the appeal
Address factual or procedural concerns rather than simply disagreeing with the reviewers' academic judgment
The editor may reconsider the decision when there is substantial evidence of a procedural error, conflict of interest, or significant misunderstanding of the manuscript.
The editorial decision following an appeal is normally final.
The journal seeks to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards.
The review period may vary depending on:
Reviewer availability
Complexity of the manuscript
Number of revisions required
Availability of appropriate subject experts
Editorial workload
Authors should understand that the peer-review process may take longer when suitable reviewers are difficult to secure.
The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics throughout the editorial and peer-review process.
All editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to uphold principles of:
Academic integrity
Objectivity
Transparency
Confidentiality
Accountability
Respect for intellectual property
Responsible research and publication practices
Cases involving suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, or other forms of misconduct may be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures.
The peer-review process is designed to ensure that published manuscripts meet appropriate standards of originality, methodological rigor, scholarly significance, ethical integrity, and academic quality.
The journal reserves the right to modify the review process when necessary to maintain the quality and integrity of its scholarly publications.
ADDITIONAL MENU
SUBMIT ARTICLE
