Review Model

The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review model to promote fairness, objectivity, independence, and integrity throughout the manuscript evaluation process. Under this model, the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors during the peer review process.

The purpose of the double-blind review model is to minimize potential bias that may arise from factors such as the author's institutional affiliation, academic reputation, nationality, gender, academic position, previous publications, or other personal and professional characteristics. Manuscripts are therefore evaluated primarily on the basis of their scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, validity, and contribution to the field.

Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial team makes reasonable efforts to remove or conceal information that could directly reveal the identity of the authors. Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts for anonymous review and should avoid including names, affiliations, acknowledgements, identifying institutional information, or other unnecessary details that may reveal their identity during the review stage.

Reviewers are selected by the editor based on their relevant academic expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and ability to provide an independent assessment. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript and should not use information obtained during the review process to determine or disclose the identity of the authors.

Reviewers must also maintain the confidentiality of their own identity. They should not communicate directly with the authors regarding the manuscript, request personal contact, or disclose that they are reviewing a particular submission. Any necessary communication between authors and reviewers should be facilitated through the editorial office or the journal's online submission system.

Although the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another, the review itself is expected to be rigorous, constructive, and academically justified. Reviewers should provide clear comments concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and identify issues related to originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, references, presentation, ethical considerations, and overall scholarly contribution.

The double-blind review process does not prevent reviewers from declaring a conflict of interest. Reviewers who recognize the authors or believe that they have a personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, or competitive relationship with the authors or the research should inform the editor immediately. The editor will determine whether the reviewer should continue or be replaced.

In cases where the identity of an author may reasonably be inferred from the manuscript because of the nature of the research, a highly specific study setting, publicly available research data, a unique research project, or other unavoidable identifying information, the journal will make reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed in every research field.

The editorial team is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the double-blind review process. Editorial staff and editors should take appropriate measures to protect the identities of authors and reviewers and should not disclose confidential information to unauthorized individuals.

The final editorial decision is made by the editor after considering the reviewers' evaluations, recommendations, and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is required by the journal's stated policy or applicable ethical and legal requirements.