Main Menu
-
Publication Policy
-
Contact
Revision Policy
Authors whose manuscripts receive a Minor Revision or Major Revision decision are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and editor. The revision process is intended to improve the manuscript's academic quality, clarity, methodological soundness, and overall contribution to the field.
Authors should carefully consider all reviewer comments and provide a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed. When an author does not agree with a particular recommendation, a clear academic justification should be provided in the response letter.
The revised manuscript should clearly indicate all substantive changes made in response to the review comments. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the revised manuscript is complete, consistent, properly formatted, and free from errors before resubmission.
The revision process may include one or more rounds of review, depending on the extent of the required changes and the editor's assessment. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers when further evaluation is considered necessary.
Authors are expected to submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial office. If additional time is required, authors should contact the editorial office before the deadline and provide a reasonable explanation. Failure to submit the revision within the specified period without prior communication may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn.
Each revision should normally include the following:
The editor will assess whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised during the review process. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication. The final decision remains the responsibility of the editor and will be based on the quality and adequacy of the revisions, the reviewers' recommendations where applicable, and the journal's publication standards.
The journal encourages authors to treat the revision process as an opportunity to strengthen their work and improve the manuscript before publication. All revisions should maintain academic integrity, accuracy, transparency, and consistency with the journal's ethical and publication standards.
Authors should carefully consider all reviewer comments and provide a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed. When an author does not agree with a particular recommendation, a clear academic justification should be provided in the response letter.
The revised manuscript should clearly indicate all substantive changes made in response to the review comments. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the revised manuscript is complete, consistent, properly formatted, and free from errors before resubmission.
The revision process may include one or more rounds of review, depending on the extent of the required changes and the editor's assessment. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers when further evaluation is considered necessary.
Authors are expected to submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial office. If additional time is required, authors should contact the editorial office before the deadline and provide a reasonable explanation. Failure to submit the revision within the specified period without prior communication may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn.
Each revision should normally include the following:
1. Revised Manuscript
A complete revised version of the manuscript incorporating the necessary corrections and improvements requested by the reviewers and editor.
2. Response to Reviewers
A point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment and clearly explaining the changes made to the manuscript.
3. Explanation of Unaddressed Comments
If a reviewer recommendation cannot reasonably be implemented, the authors should provide a clear and academically justified explanation in the response to reviewers.
The editor will assess whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised during the review process. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication. The final decision remains the responsibility of the editor and will be based on the quality and adequacy of the revisions, the reviewers' recommendations where applicable, and the journal's publication standards.
The journal encourages authors to treat the revision process as an opportunity to strengthen their work and improve the manuscript before publication. All revisions should maintain academic integrity, accuracy, transparency, and consistency with the journal's ethical and publication standards.
