Peer Review Process

The journal applies editorial screening followed by double-blind peer review. Decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
Editorial Screening Double-Blind Review Ethics and Rigor
Overview
Stage 1: Editorial Screening
All submissions undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to confirm scope fit, originality, basic methodological adequacy, ethical statements (where applicable), and compliance with author guidelines. Manuscripts may be returned for technical correction or declined at this stage if they do not meet minimum requirements.
Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass screening are evaluated by independent reviewers. Identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to reduce bias and support fair assessment. Authors may be requested to revise their manuscript based on the reviewer reports.
Stage 3: Editorial Decision
The editor makes the final decision by considering reviewer recommendations, the manuscript’s revision quality, and editorial standards. Decisions include reject, revise (minor/major), or accept. Additional rounds of review may be applied when necessary.
Reviewer Assessment Focus
Substantive Quality
  • Originality, contribution, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Theoretical grounding and clarity of research questions/objectives.
  • Methodological rigor, transparency, and appropriateness of analysis.
  • Validity of interpretations and strength of the discussion and implications.
Technical and Presentation Quality
  • Structure, coherence, clarity, and academic language quality.
  • Tables/figures quality and reporting completeness.
  • Citation accuracy and reference list consistency.
  • Compliance with journal templates and formatting rules.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are invited based on their subject-matter expertise, publication record, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript. The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest and may replace reviewers if confidentiality or independence cannot be ensured.
Confidentiality: Reviewer reports are confidential and are used to support editorial decisions. Authors should respond to reviewer comments in a structured and evidence-based manner.
Indicative Timeline
General Target
Processing time varies by topic, revision complexity, and reviewer availability. Where feasible, the journal aims to complete an initial review cycle in approximately 4 weeks. This is an indicative target, not a guarantee.
Author Revisions
Revision timelines depend on the decision type (minor/major revision) and the author’s responsiveness. Authors should submit a clean revised manuscript and a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment.
Final Decision
The editor may make a final decision after review and revision, or may request additional review when substantial changes are required or when critical issues remain unresolved.
Review Steps
  1. Submission is made through OJS and the required metadata and files are completed.
  2. Editorial screening is conducted. The manuscript may be declined, returned for technical correction, or advanced to external review.
  3. Double-blind peer review is performed by invited reviewers.
  4. An editorial decision is issued: reject, minor revision, major revision, or accept.
  5. Authors receive a decision letter and (when applicable) reviewer reports and revision instructions.
Editorial authority: The editor has full responsibility for editorial decisions and the selection of content for publication, in accordance with the journal’s policies and publication ethics.