Peer Review Process

The peer review process involves a thorough evaluation of submitted manuscripts to ensure they meet certain criteria before they are sent for review. This initial evaluation focuses on the format and topic of the manuscript and is carried out promptly to prevent unnecessary delays.

Under normal circumstances, the review process typically takes around four weeks, although in exceptional cases, it can extend up to two months. The entire duration from manuscript submission to publication usually averages around 90 days.

Here is a summary of the review procedure:

  1. The author submits the manuscript.
  2. The Editor assigns reviewers to assess the manuscript.
  3. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on factors such as its originality, theoretical and methodological soundness, coherence of analysis, and its ability to effectively communicate with readers.
  4. The Editor makes a decision based on the feedback from the reviewers and sends it to the author.

It's important to note that this journal follows a double-blind peer review system, which means that both the reviewers and the authors are unaware of each other's identities.

Peer Review:

All submitted papers go through a peer-review process known as double-blind peer review. This means that reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and vice versa. Each manuscript is typically assigned to at least two reviewers, and the standard review period is four weeks, although this timeframe can be adjusted during the editorial process.

The editors have the authority to select reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant subject area while ensuring that they have no affiliation with the authors' institution or recent collaborations. Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest related to the research, authors, or funding sources. If a reviewer feels unqualified or unable to conduct a timely review, they are expected to promptly inform the Editor.

Reviewers must approach their evaluations objectively, avoiding personal criticism of the author. They should express their opinions clearly and provide supporting arguments.

Confidentiality is of utmost importance, and all manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents.

Authors submit their manuscripts to the Editorial Office using an online system and receive an acknowledgment of receipt. The Chief Editor conducts an initial review, with assistance from Section Editors or Associate Editors, to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the scope, formal requirements, and style of the Journal. If the manuscript is deemed unsuitable, the author is promptly notified, resulting in direct rejection. Manuscripts that meet the Journal's criteria are sent for review. In some cases, depending on the type of paper, the Chief Editor may accept manuscripts for publication immediately.

Before a manuscript is sent for review, the Editor ensures that it adheres to the Journal's style, includes an abstract (if applicable), keywords, correct referencing, and follows the appropriate blinding system. If any elements are missing, the author is requested to complete them before the manuscript is sent for review.

Once a manuscript is sent for review, the assigned reviewers evaluate it and subsequently provide their review reports to the Chief Editor. The review period usually ranges from 2 to 6 weeks, depending on the discipline. Clear instructions are provided to reviewers, either in the form of a review report or a set of questions to consider.

Based on the reviewers' comments, the Chief Editor makes a decision, which can include accepting the manuscript without further revision, accepting it after minor revisions, requesting resubmission with significant changes, or rejecting it. The author receives an acceptance or rejection letter accordingly. If revisions are requested, the author is expected to address the reviewers' comments and submit an updated version.

After the review process, the manuscript is passed on to the Copy Editor, who is responsible for correcting referencing according to the journal's style and layout. Once the Copy Editor completes their work, the manuscript is forwarded to the Layout Editor, who structures the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article and prepares it in various formats, such as PDF and HTML. The Layout Editor then sends the manuscript to the Proof Editor.

The Proof Editor ensures that the manuscript has undergone all the necessary stages and is ready for publication.

Reviewers for each paper work independently, without knowledge of each other's identities. If there is a discrepancy in the decisions of the two reviewers (accept/reject), additional reviewers may be assigned by the Editor.

The Editorial team ensures reasonable quality control for the reviews. If authors raise valid concerns about a reviewer's feedback, steps are taken to ensure objectivity and maintain high academic standards. Additional reviewers may be assigned when there are doubts about the objectivity or quality of the reviews.

Basic Principles for Reviewers:

Reviewers should:

  • Only agree to review manuscripts within their area of expertise and assess them promptly.
  • Maintain confidentiality and refrain from disclosing any details of the manuscript or its review beyond what is released by the journal.
  • Avoid using any information obtained during the review process for personal gain or to disadvantage others.
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest and seek guidance from the journal if unsure.
  • Remain objective and constructive in their reviews, avoiding influence from the authors' characteristics or commercial considerations.
  • Recognize that peer review is a reciprocal process and fulfill their fair share of reviewing promptly.
  • Provide accurate and truthful personal and professional information to the journal.
  • Understand that impersonating others during the review process is considered serious misconduct.