Peer Review Process
The journal operates a rigorous, fair and transparent peer-review process to ensure the scholarly quality, integrity and relevance of all published content.
All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, originality, ethical compliance and conformity with the author guidelines. This assessment is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or by a designated independent handling editor where a conflict of interest exists.
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are submitted to external peer review. The journal applies the following review models:
- Double-blind peer review (default): reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.
- Single-blind peer review: reviewers remain anonymous and authors are identified.
- Open peer review: reviewers and authors are identified, subject to their informed agreement.
The selected review model must be recorded in the manuscript’s editorial file. The choice of review model does not alter the journal’s standards of scholarly rigor, reviewer independence or editorial accountability.
Each research manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers selected for their relevant expertise. Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest before accepting the assignment. Where evaluations materially diverge, a third independent reviewer may be appointed.
Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance and alignment with the journal’s scope. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision.
Editorial Decision-Making and Conflicts of Interest
The Editor-in-Chief is normally responsible for the final decision on acceptance, rejection or revision after considering the reviewers’ reports and the authors’ responses.
Where the Editor-in-Chief has an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest — including authorship or co-authorship of the manuscript, a close personal or professional relationship with an author, recent collaboration, institutional dependency or any other circumstance capable of affecting impartiality — the manuscript shall be assigned to an independent handling editor.
The same principle applies to manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Deputy Editor, members of the Scientific Board, Editorial Board or editorial staff.
A conflicted editor or board member shall not:
- Conduct the initial editorial assessment.
- Select or appoint reviewers.
- Participate in correspondence with reviewers.
- Access reviewer identities where anonymity applies.
- Influence the interpretation of the reports.
- Participate in the final editorial decision.
The designated independent handling editor shall have exclusive authority over the editorial process and final decision for the manuscript concerned. The identity of the handling editor, the conflict-management procedure and the final decision shall be documented in the confidential editorial record.
Manuscripts authored by editors or board members are subject to the same external peer-review standards as all other submissions. Editorial position or institutional affiliation shall confer no preferential treatment.
Confidentiality and Record-Keeping
Editors and reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, review reports, author responses and editorial correspondence. Reviewer identities shall remain confidential whenever required by the selected review model.
The journal retains appropriate records of reviewer appointment, conflicts-of-interest declarations, review reports, editorial correspondence and final decisions, in accordance with its privacy, ethical and preservation policies.
