Manuscript Evaluation and Peer-Review Process
All scholarly research articles submitted to the journal undergo double-blind peer review before publication. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise. Reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise and must have no conflict of interest with the authors or the submitted manuscript.
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on the reviewers' reports and the journal's editorial standards.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a specific publication time for submitted manuscripts.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript is initially assessed by the editorial office to determine whether it complies with the journal’s aims and scope, author guidelines, formatting requirements, and relevant standards of academic integrity.
At this stage, the manuscript is also screened for originality and potential academic misconduct, including plagiarism, substantial text similarity, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission to another journal. Appropriate plagiarism-detection and text-similarity tools may be used for this purpose.
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or raise substantiated concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other violations of publication ethics may be rejected without being sent for external peer review.
2. Independent Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are submitted to independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise and subject knowledge. Individuals with actual or potential conflicts of interest are not appointed as reviewers.
The journal normally obtains evaluations from two independent reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments and to disclose any potential conflict of interest to the editor.
3. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts with particular attention to the following criteria:
* relevance and significance of the research topic;
* originality and scientific contribution of the study;
* clarity of the research problem, objectives, and research questions;
* adequacy of the theoretical framework and methodological approach;
* appropriateness of the methods used in relation to the research objectives;
* reliability and validity of the data and findings;
* coherence and rigor of the analysis;
* consistency between the research objectives, findings, and conclusions;
* appropriate and accurate use of scholarly sources;
* clarity, structure, and academic quality of the manuscript; and
* compliance with relevant standards of research and publication ethics.
Reviewers are also expected to notify the editor of any concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, unethical research practices, or other potential breaches of publication ethics.
4. Editorial Decision
The editor considers the reviewers’ reports and makes the final editorial decision based on the overall scientific quality of the manuscript and the journal’s editorial policies. The reviewers’ recommendations constitute an important part of the decision-making process; however, the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editor.
The following decisions may be made:
Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revision;
Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision is made;
Major Revision and Resubmission – substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be subject to further peer review;
Reject – the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication on scientific, methodological, ethical, or other substantive grounds.
5. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations
If the recommendations of the two reviewers differ substantially, particularly where one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection, the editor may seek the opinion of a third independent reviewer. The decision to obtain an additional review is made at the editor’s discretion, taking into account the substance and justification of the existing reviews.
The final decision is based on the available peer-review reports, the scientific merits of the manuscript, and the editor’s independent assessment.
6. Revised Manuscripts
Where revisions are requested, authors are required to address the reviewers’ comments carefully and provide a reasoned response to each substantive comment. Revised manuscripts should clearly indicate the changes made in response to the reviewers’ recommendations.
Where necessary, the editor may return a revised manuscript to the original reviewers or assign it to other independent reviewers for further assessment.
7. Review Timeline
The journal aims to conduct the initial editorial screening and peer-review process as efficiently as possible. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the availability and response time of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the extent of revisions required, and the need for additional or repeated peer review. The Editorial Office’s statistics indicate that the average time from manuscript submission to publication is 90 days.
Throughout the peer-review process, the confidentiality of authors and reviewers is maintained. The journal is committed to ensuring the independence, objectivity, integrity, and fairness of the peer-review process and to preventing conflicts of interest in accordance with recognized standards of scholarly publishing ethics.
8. Conflict of Interest
Authors, editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional or personal relationships that could influence the objectivity of the research, review or editorial decision.
Editors and reviewers must withdraw from the evaluation of a manuscript when a conflict of interest exists.