Peer Review Policy

Initial Screening

The editorial team evaluates the article for scope alignment, formatting, originality, and adherence to journal policies. Submissions failing these checks are returned to the authors for revision or rejected outright.

Reviewer Assignment

Articles that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more expert reviewers selected based on subject expertise. Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate submissions based on: originality and novelty of the research; scientific rigor and methodology; clarity and coherence of the presentation; relevance to the journal’s scope; and ethical compliance including proper citation of prior work.

Reviewer Recommendations

Accept: The article is ready for publication.
Minor Revisions: Requires small improvements or clarifications.
Major Revisions: Requires substantial changes to methodology, analysis, or presentation.
Reject: The article does not meet the journal's standards or scope.

Revisions

Authors are typically given 2-4 weeks to address reviewer comments and resubmit their revised article. Revised submissions are re-evaluated by reviewers or editors, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, as determined by the editorial team.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Associate Editors, makes the final publication decision based on reviewer feedback and editorial judgment.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Maintain the confidentiality of assigned manuscripts.
• Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback.
• Refrain from using unpublished information for personal benefit.

Peer Review Timelines

The typical review cycle takes 4 to 6 weeks, but timelines may vary based on article complexity and reviewer availability.