Peer Review Process

Peer review is critical in maintaining the standards of the published articles. Therefore, the journal is committed to highest standards of peer review. The journal employs a two-stage review process:

Stage 1: Each received manuscript is subject to a preliminary screening by the editors(usually the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board authorized by the Editor-in-Chief) against conformity to the aims and scope of the journal, serious language errors, and manuscript formatting. Manuscripts may be rejected with editorial decision or returned to authors for further adjustments at this stage. 

Stage 2: Those manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are sent to two or more external reviewers who are experts in their fields for full peer-review process. Editors may choose to assign additional reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. The peer review process for the journal is single-blind, where the author remains unaware of the reviewer’s identity, but the reviewer knows the authors. At least two review reports are collected for each manuscript, with the Editor suggesting potential reviewers during the editorial pre-check. The peer review process not only acts as a filter to ensure only high-quality research is published but also provides feedback for authors to improve their work.

The Editor selects reviewers based on their independence, expertise, recent related assessments, and ability to review within the required timeframe. Authors may suggest reviewers, although these suggestions may not always be followed. The editor will honor requests to exclude certain scientists from reviewing. Independent reviewers are typically selected from the global research community with great care.

These reviewers provide critical evaluations of the manuscript’s validity and significance, offering their perspectives on its novelty, impact, and relevance to readers. Reviewers are encouraged to categorize their feedback into the following recommendations:

• Accept in Present Form
• Accept after Minor Revisions
• Reconsider after Major Revisions
• Reject

Please note that reviewers’ recommendations are only visible to the journal editor and not the authors. Decisions regarding revision, acceptance, or rejection must always be well-substantiated.

Review reports are intended to guide the Editor. The Academic Editor consolidates all review reports received to reach a initial or final decision. Generally, all review reports intended for the authors are transmitted. Occasionally, review reports may be edited to maintain anonymity and collegiality in the review process.

The manuscripts are evaluated against the following criteria:

• Relevance to aims and scope of the journal
• Significance of the contribution
• Mastery over the existing literature
• Justification of the methodology
• Quality of the data, analysis, presentation and interpretation of the results
• Clarity of writing and adherence to journal formatting