Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Peer Review

Peer-Review Workflow

Manuscripts submitted through the journal’s Online Submission System are first examined by the Editorial Office. This preliminary screening determines whether the submission is complete, appropriately formatted and suitable for further academic evaluation.

During initial screening, the manuscript may be examined with reference to the following matters:

Manuscripts that are incomplete, outside the journal’s scope, seriously deficient in academic quality or inconsistent with publication-ethics requirements may be returned for correction or declined without external peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully complete editorial screening are ordinarily forwarded for double-blind peer review. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Authors should remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements and other directly identifying information from the manuscript file intended for review. Author details should be entered separately in the OJS submission metadata or uploaded in a separate title page where required.

The double-blind system is intended to reduce the influence of personal, institutional or professional considerations and to support an impartial evaluation based on the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, subject expertise, research interests, publication record and ability to provide an impartial assessment. The Editorial Committee seeks to appoint reviewers whose expertise is appropriate to the central subject, methodology and disciplinary orientation of the manuscript.

A manuscript is ordinarily evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers. Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the Editor may consult an additional reviewer or seek further expert advice before reaching an editorial decision.

Reviewers with known personal, professional, financial, academic or institutional conflicts of interest should not participate in the evaluation of the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, respectful and evidence-based comments. Review reports should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and should distinguish between essential revisions and optional improvements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the Editor or Editorial Committee after considering all review reports, manuscript quality, ethical requirements and journal policy.

When revision is requested, the corresponding author should submit a carefully revised manuscript together with a clear point-by-point response to the reviewer and editorial comments.

The response should indicate where each change has been made. Where an author does not agree with a recommendation, a respectful and academically reasoned explanation should be provided.

Revised manuscripts may be examined by the Editor or returned to the original or additional reviewers. Submission of a revised manuscript does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

Final Editorial Decision

Reviewers are ordinarily requested to complete their evaluations within one to two weeks. The total editorial processing period may vary depending on the subject area, availability of suitable reviewers, complexity of the research, quality of the submission and extent of revision required.

Authors will be informed when an unexpected delay occurs. The journal seeks to process manuscripts efficiently; however, academic quality and fairness will not be compromised merely to meet a fixed timetable.

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, author information and editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential. Such information may be accessed only by persons legitimately involved in the editorial and publication process.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose, reproduce, distribute or use unpublished data, arguments, methods or ideas for personal, academic, professional or commercial advantage.

Confidential manuscripts or reviewer reports must not be uploaded to external artificial-intelligence systems where confidentiality, data protection, ownership or intellectual-property safeguards cannot be assured.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, impartial assessment. Conflicts may be personal, professional, financial, academic, institutional or otherwise relevant.

A reviewer or editor with a material conflict should decline participation or transfer responsibility to another qualified person. The existence of a possible conflict should be communicated confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief or authorised editorial representative.

Reviewers should confidentially notify the Editor when they identify credible concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, ethical non-compliance or other forms of publication misconduct.

Suspected misconduct will be examined fairly and confidentially. The journal may request explanations, supporting data, ethical approvals or other relevant evidence before taking an editorial decision.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a material factual error, significant misunderstanding or procedural irregularity affected the editorial decision. An appeal should provide clear academic grounds and should not merely express disagreement with reviewer comments.

Appeals may be considered by the Editor, Editorial Committee or an independent expert who was not directly responsible for the original decision. The journal may uphold, revise or reconsider the earlier decision after reviewing the available evidence.

The outcome of an appeal shall be communicated to the corresponding author through the official editorial channel.

Commitment to Quality and Editorial Independence