Main Menu
-
Publication Policy
-
Contact
Review Process
Review Process
The journal applies a rigorous and structured peer review process to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and consistently. Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess its relevance to the journal's aims and scope, compliance with submission guidelines, manuscript completeness, academic quality, originality, and potential ethical concerns.
Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to qualified and independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive comments concerning the originality, theoretical contribution, methodology, data analysis, results, discussion, references, clarity, and overall academic significance of the manuscript. Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest and maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents.
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript and determines the appropriate editorial decision. Where revisions are required, authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version within the timeframe specified by the journal. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
The journal aims to complete the initial peer review and editorial decision process within approximately 8 weeks after manuscript submission. This timeframe is an estimated target and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, additional review requirements, and the time required for authors to complete revisions.
Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to qualified and independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive comments concerning the originality, theoretical contribution, methodology, data analysis, results, discussion, references, clarity, and overall academic significance of the manuscript. Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest and maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents.
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript and determines the appropriate editorial decision. Where revisions are required, authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version within the timeframe specified by the journal. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
The journal aims to complete the initial peer review and editorial decision process within approximately 8 weeks after manuscript submission. This timeframe is an estimated target and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, additional review requirements, and the time required for authors to complete revisions.
Review Process Timeline
The following timeline illustrates the estimated stages of the peer review process from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision.
| No. | Stage | Timeline | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manuscript Submission | Day 1 | The author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system in accordance with the journal's submission guidelines. |
| 2 | Initial Editorial Screening | Week 1 | The editorial team checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal's aims and scope, submission guidelines, formatting requirements, completeness, originality, and potential publication ethics concerns. |
| 3 | Reviewer Assignment | Week 1–2 | Suitable reviewers are selected based on their expertise and research experience. The manuscript is handled under the journal's Double-Blind Peer Review model. |
| 4 | Peer Review | Week 2–5 | Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript's originality, methodology, results, analysis, discussion, references, ethical aspects, and overall scientific contribution. |
| 5 | Editorial Evaluation | Week 5–6 | The editor evaluates the reviewer reports and determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, sent for further review, or rejected. |
| 6 | Author Revision | Week 6–7 | When revisions are required, authors revise the manuscript and provide a response to the reviewers' comments. The revision period may vary depending on the extent of the required changes. |
| 7 | Re-Review / Final Evaluation | Week 7–8 | If necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The editor then conducts the final assessment based on the revised manuscript and reviewer recommendations. |
| 8 | Editorial Decision | By Week 8 | The editor communicates the editorial decision to the author. The decision may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, depending on the outcome of the evaluation. |
Important Note
The 8-week period represents the journal's target timeframe for the initial peer review and editorial decision process. It is an estimated timeframe and does not constitute a guarantee of a final acceptance or publication within eight weeks. Delays may occur due to reviewer availability, the need to appoint replacement reviewers, manuscript complexity, additional review rounds, or the time required for authors to complete revisions.
