Peer Review Process

Reviewing Procedure

Statement of Peer Review

All research articles submitted to this journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process, beginning with an initial screening by the editor. This ensures the manuscript's quality and relevance before it proceeds to the review stage.

Manuscript Submission and Peer Review Process:

  1. Manuscript Submission: The author prepares and submits the research manuscript.
  2. Initial Screening: The editor conducts a preliminary assessment and forwards the manuscript to appropriate reviewers.
  3. Reviewer Assessment: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript following provided guidelines, assessing the research quality and relevance.
  4. Reviewer Recommendation: Reviewers provide recommendations to reject, revise, or accept the manuscript.
  5. Editorial Decision: The editor drafts a decision and communicates it to the author, along with reviewer feedback.
  6. Author Revisions: The author addresses reviewer comments and resubmits the revised manuscript.
  7. Final Submission: The updated manuscript is reviewed by the editorial team and sent to the publication department.

Note: The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.

Peer Review Process Details

Manuscripts are forwarded for review only if they meet initial form and thematic requirements. The process aims to be efficient, typically taking up to four weeks, though it may extend to two months in exceptional cases. The entire process from submission to publication averages 90 days.

Each manuscript is evaluated based on:

  • Originality: Verified through a plagiarism check (e.g., Turnitin).
  • Theoretical and Methodological Soundness: Ensuring robustness given the topic.
  • Analytical Coherence: Logical consistency in the analysis.
  • Communication Clarity: Quality of grammar and style.

Reviewing Steps:

  1. Submission: The manuscript is submitted by the author.
  2. Reviewer Assignment: The editor assigns reviewers.
  3. Review Process: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript.
  4. Editorial Decision: The editor provides a decision based on reviewer feedback.
  5. Revisions: Authors revise and resubmit, addressing reviewer comments.
  6. Multiple Review Rounds: The manuscript may undergo several review rounds until deemed suitable for publication.
  7. Acceptance: Upon satisfactory revisions, the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Peer Review Integrity

The journal upholds the highest standards of peer review, ensuring:

  • Independent, anonymous reviewers assess each manuscript.
  • Confidentiality and impartiality throughout the process.
  • Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest.
  • Objective and constructive feedback is provided.

Guidelines for Reviewers

  • Reviewers should have relevant subject expertise.
  • Confidentiality must be respected.
  • Information obtained during review should not be used for personal or organizational gain.
  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Reviews should be objective, constructive, and free from personal criticism.

Review Process Details:

  • Assignment and Confidentiality: Reviewers are assigned by the editor and must maintain confidentiality.
  • Timeframe: Reviews should be completed within 2-6 weeks, depending on the discipline.
  • Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations.
  • Decision Making: Based on feedback, the editor decides to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript.
  • Revised Submissions: Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated, often by the same reviewers.
  • Final Decision: The editor-in-chief has the final say on manuscript acceptance.

Reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

  • Only agree to review manuscripts within their expertise.
  • Maintain confidentiality and not disclose manuscript details.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback.
  • Complete reviews in a timely manner and provide accurate professional information.

In case of reviewer conflicts or inconsistencies, additional reviewers may be assigned. The final decision rests with the editor-in-chief.