Editorial Process and Peer Review

Editorial Process and Peer Review

Pre-check Stage

Upon submission, the journal editor will conduct an initial technical pre-check to assess:

• Overall suitability of the manuscript for the journal’s scope.
• Compliance with high-quality research and ethical standards.
• Rigor sufficient to proceed to further review.

The academic editor (e.g., Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board member) will be notified and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. At this stage, the academic editor evaluates the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, scientific soundness (including relevance of references and methodological correctness), and decides whether to:

• Reject the submission,
• Request revisions before peer review, or
• Proceed to peer review by recommending suitable reviewers.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial checks undergo peer review by at least two independent experts. The journal employs a double-blind peer review process (neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities).

For regular submissions, in-house assistant editors invite experts, including those recommended by academic editors. Potential reviewers may also include Editorial Board members and Guest Editors. Authors may suggest reviewers, provided they meet the following criteria:

• No co-authorship with any of the manuscript’s authors in the past three years.
• No current affiliation or collaboration with the authors’ institutions.

Optional Open Peer Review

The journal offers an open peer review option:

• Authors may choose to publish reviewer reports and editorial decisions alongside their manuscript.
• Reviewers may sign their reports (i.e., disclose their identity in published reviews).
• Authors may change their open review preference before publication, but post-publication modifications require approval from the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief.

We encourage authors to opt for open peer review as a testament to the rigorous evaluation process. To ensure impartiality, reviewer identities are disclosed only if they consent and after manuscript acceptance.

Editorial Decision and Revision

All articles, reviews, and communications undergo peer review with at least two review reports. The in-house editor communicates the academic editor’s decision, which may be:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions.
• Minor Revisions: Acceptance is contingent on addressing reviewer comments.
• Major Revisions: Acceptance depends on substantial revisions. Authors must respond point-by-point or provide rebuttals where revisions are not feasible. A maximum of two major revision rounds is permitted. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within the stipulated timeframe and may undergo re-evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript has critical flaws or lacks original contribution; resubmission is not encouraged.

Authors must respond to all reviewer comments systematically. Disagreements with reviewers require clear justifications. If the editorial office cannot contact the author during review or production, the journal reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript after a specified period of inactivity.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by emailing the Editorial Office. The appeal must include:

• A detailed justification with point-by-point responses to reviewer/editor comments.
• Submission within three months of a "reject and decline resubmission" decision.

Appeals failing to meet these criteria will not be considered. The Managing Editor forwards the manuscript and related materials (including reviewer identities) to a designated Editorial Board member. The consulted Academic Editor may recommend:

• Acceptance,
• Further peer review, or
• Upholding the rejection.

The Editor-in-Chief validates the final decision. A rejection at this stage is final and non-reversible.

Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

• Professional typesetting,
• English language editing,
• Author proofreading,
• Final corrections, and
• Online publication.

Post-acceptance changes to the main text (beyond layout/grammar) are generally not permitted. If revisions are necessary, authors must justify them to the editorial office, prompting a new academic evaluation.