Peer Review Process

The Journal enforces a rigorous Double-Anonymous Peer Review process (where both the authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from each other) to ensure the highest academic quality, validity, and integrity of published manuscripts.

1. Initial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Managing Editor to assess:

Scope alignment and adherence to Author Guidelines.
Basic scientific quality, originality, and clarity of presentation.
Similarity index threshold via anti-plagiarism software (Turnitin, max 20%).

Manuscripts failing to meet basic requirements will be rejected at this stage without full peer review.

2. Peer Review Assignment & Evaluation

Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts passing desk review are assigned to a minimum of three (3) independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on research design, methodology, clarity, originality, theoretical contribution, and reference currency.
Review Duration: The peer review process typically takes 3 to 6 weeks.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following final decisions:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted as-is for publication.
Revisions Required (Minor): The manuscript is accepted pending minor revisions; reviewed internally by the editor.
Resubmit for Review (Major): The manuscript requires substantial revisions and will undergo a second round of peer review.
Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected due to major flaws, lack of novelty, or out-of-scope content.

4. Revision & Appeals Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments within the specified timeframe.
Authors may appeal a rejection decision by submitting a formal written request to the Editor-in-Chief outlining scientific justifications for reconsideration.