Editorial Process

Peer Review Process Overview

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and serves to uphold the quality, integrity, and credibility of academic literature. It provides an independent and critical evaluation of submitted manuscripts by subject-matter experts who are not affiliated with the journal’s editorial decision-making team. A large proportion of authors (approximately 90%) acknowledge that peer review contributes significantly to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of their manuscripts.

All journals follow a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach is designed to minimize bias and ensure an objective assessment based solely on scholarly merit.

Manuscript Screening and Pre-Review Evaluation

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment prior to external peer review. This stage consists of two sequential steps:

1. Technical Pre-Check

The Editorial Office first evaluates each submission to ensure compliance with journal requirements. This includes verification of formatting standards, completeness of submission materials, ethical compliance, and adherence to scope guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without external review.

2. Editorial Pre-Assessment

Following technical pre-check, an Academic Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editorial Board Member) assesses the manuscript’s scientific relevance, originality, methodological soundness, and alignment with the aims and scope of the journal. Based on this evaluation, the editor determines whether the manuscript should proceed to external peer review.

External Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the pre-review stage are assigned to independent external reviewers. The process is coordinated by the journal’s editorial staff to ensure efficiency, consistency, and adherence to ethical standards.

Key features of the peer review process include:

- Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

- The review process is conducted under a double-blind model, ensuring anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

- Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication history, and relevance to the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers may be provided by Academic Editors or identified by editorial staff through literature and database searches.

- Reviewers are typically given three weeks to complete their initial evaluation. For revised submissions, a shorter review period of approximately one week is standard, although extensions may be granted when necessary.

Revision and Editorial Decision-Making

Upon receipt of at least two peer review reports, the handling Academic Editor evaluates the quality, consistency, and relevance of the feedback. Where reviewer opinions significantly diverge, an additional independent review may be requested.

Based on the peer review reports and the editor's evaluation, one of the following decisions is made:

- Accept

- Minor Revision (authors are typically given up to one week to revise)

- Major Revision (authors are typically given up to three weeks to revise)

- Reject

Author Revision Requirements

When revisions are requested, authors should provide a detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer comments. Each comment should be addressed clearly and systematically. In cases where authors disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, a well-reasoned, evidence-based justification should be provided.

The revised manuscript, along with the response document, is reassessed by the Academic Editor and, when necessary, re-evaluated by the original or additional reviewers prior to a final decision.