Peer Review Policy

Our journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic quality, research integrity, and transparency. To ensure this, we follow a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in line with ethical guidelines and best practices.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial team to ensure:

  • Alignment with the journal's scope

  • Compliance with submission and formatting guidelines

  • Adherence to ethical standards (e.g., informed consent, IRB approval)

  • Acceptable similarity index (typically below 10%)

Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are submitted for double-blind peer review, where:

  • Authors and reviewers remain anonymous

  • At least two independent expert reviewers are assigned

  • A third reviewer may be consulted if initial reviews are inconclusive or conflicting

This ensures an unbiased and fair evaluation process.

3. Reviewer Assessment Criteria

Reviewers evaluate each manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Theoretical and methodological rigor

  • Clarity, structure, and coherence of the manuscript

  • Language quality, including grammar and readability

  • Ethical compliance and integrity of research

  • Impact and implications for theory, policy, or practice

4. Editorial Decision Process

Based on reviewer reports, the editorial team will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept (with or without minor revisions)

  • Revise and Resubmit (minor or major revisions)

  • Reject (not suitable for publication)

Authors are notified with a reasoned decision, including reviewer feedback.

5. Revisions and Re-evaluation

Authors must respond to all reviewer comments in a point-by-point response letter. Revised manuscripts may be:

  • Accepted directly by the Editor-in-Chief

  • Sent for a second round of peer review (if major changes are made)

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

6. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

All reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept reviews only in their areas of expertise

  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeline

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback

  • Notify the editor of any plagiarism or ethical concerns

A list of contributing reviewers will be published annually for transparency and recognition.

7. Peer Review Timeline

Stage Timeline
Initial editorial screening Within 2 week
Peer review process 4–8 weeks
Final decision 10–12 weeks from submission

8. Ethical Standards and Compliance

The journal strictly follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and adheres to internationally recognized ethical standards. Any cases of:

  • Plagiarism

  • Fabrication or falsification of data

  • Duplicate publication

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

…will lead to immediate rejection or retraction.

Reviewer Acknowledgment

We recognize the invaluable role of peer reviewers in maintaining scientific quality. To show appreciation, we publish an annual list of all reviewers in the first issue of the following year.