Peer Review Policy

Overview

The journal implements a thorough double-blind peer review system to uphold excellence in scholarly publishing. Every manuscript submitted is assessed impartially by qualified experts to ensure academic integrity, originality, and high research quality.

Types of Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind review approach, meaning the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. This method minimizes bias and promotes a fair, objective evaluation process.

Review Process Steps

Preliminary Editorial Check

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial review by the editorial team to confirm its relevance, formatting accuracy, and compliance with the journal’s ethical and scope requirements.

Plagiarism Screening

All submissions are evaluated using reputable plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate) to ensure originality and academic honesty.

Reviewer Assignment

The manuscript is then forwarded to two or three qualified reviewers with expertise in the subject area.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are generally given 2 to 4 weeks to complete their evaluations, though extensions may be granted when necessary.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess submissions based on:

  • Alignment with the journal’s thematic focus

  • Novelty and contribution to the academic field

  • Strength and validity of the methodology

  • Organization, clarity, and quality of writing

  • Proper citation practices and ethical compliance

Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewers’ comments, the editorial team may choose to:

  • Accept the manuscript

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Request major revisions

  • Reject the manuscript

Authors are provided with consolidated reviewer feedback along with the editorial decision.

Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are requested, authors must submit a modified version along with a detailed, point-by-point response to reviewer comments within 2 to 3 weeks. The revised manuscript may be forwarded to the same reviewers or evaluated directly by the editorial board.

Reviewer Anonymity and Confidentiality

All materials associated with the review process are kept strictly confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or share any manuscript information outside of their evaluation duties.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely assessments

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest

  • Maintain strict confidentiality

  • Report any suspected ethical concerns, including plagiarism or data manipulation

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a formal written appeal if they believe a decision was made unfairly. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editorial member not involved in the original decision.

Recognition of Reviewers

To acknowledge the essential role of reviewers, the journal provides review certificates and may publish an annual list of reviewers (with their consent) on the journal’s official website.