Reviewing Procedure

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure quality, originality, and adherence to ethical publishing standards.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

  • Each submission is checked for scope alignment, formatting, and ethical compliance, including plagiarism screening with reliable detection tools. All submitted manuscipts undergo similarity screening before peer review. 
  • Manuscripts that do not meet the Journal's scientific, ethical, techinical, or editorial requirements may be rejected without external peer review in accordance with the Journal's Manuscipt Rejection Policy. 

2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

  • Submissions that pass initial checks are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
  • The process is double-blind; identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed.

3. Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality, relevance, and contribution to the field;
  • Methodological rigor and soundness of analysis;
  • Clarity of presentation, organization, and academic writing;
  • Proper referencing and engagement with relevant literature;
  • Compliance with ethical standards in research and publication.

4. Classification of Papers

  • Original Research Articles – new empirical or theoretical contributions;
  • Review Papers – critical syntheses of existing knowledge;
  • Conceptual Papers – theoretical developments or frameworks;
  • Case Studies / Reports – applied analyses and practical insights;
  • Other Contributions – editorials, book reviews, professional reflections (if applicable).

5. Review Timeline

  • Reviewers normally submit reports (review round) within 7–10 days.
  • Authors are expected to respond to reviewers’ comments within the specified timeframe, depending on the type of revision required: minor revisions: up to 3–5 days and major revisions: up to 7–10 days.

6. Handling Disagreements

  • When reviewer recommendations diverge significantly, the Editor-in-Chief may invite a third independent review.
  • The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and is binding.

7. Possible Editorial Outcomes

  1. Accept without revisions,
  2. Accept with minor revisions,
  3. Accept with major revisions (re-review required),
  4. Reject, but encourage resubmission after substantial revision,
  5. Reject.

8. Post-Acceptance Process

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, XML/JATS formatting, layout design, and proofreading; final proofs are shared with authors prior to publication.
  • Articles are published open access under CC BY 4.0 and assigned a DOI for permanent accessibility.

9. Ethics and Confidentiality

  • The journal follows COPE principles; reviewers must maintain confidentiality and disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Ethical breaches (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated data) result in immediate rejection.