Peer Review Process

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor or Editorial Office. This stage normally requires approximately 7–14 days.

The initial assessment includes:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
• Originality and potential scholarly contribution.
• Compliance with the official journal template.
• Completeness and organization of the manuscript.
• Academic writing quality and clarity.
• Compliance with ethical and submission requirements.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are screened using plagiarism-detection software, such as Turnitin or iThenticate. The overall similarity index should normally not exceed 20%, excluding properly quoted material, bibliographic references, and commonly used academic expressions where appropriate.

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, publication record, absence of conflicts of interest, and suitability for evaluating the manuscript topic and methodology.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and confidentially. The external peer-review stage normally requires approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and response time.

Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Originality, novelty, and scholarly significance.
• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
• Quality and relevance of the theoretical foundation.
• Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology.
• Validity and clarity of the results.
• Depth and coherence of the discussion.
• Consistency between findings and conclusions.
• Theoretical, practical, or policy implications.
• Use of relevant and recent scholarly references.
• Compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers submit written reports and recommendations to the Editor. Possible recommendations include:

• Accept without revision.
• Accept with minor revisions.
• Reconsider after major revisions.
• Reject.

Authors may be requested to make minor or major revisions in response to reviewer and editorial comments. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify all revisions and provide reasoned explanations when a reviewer recommendation has not been followed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

After reviewing the external reports and the authors' revisions, the Editor makes the final decision. When necessary, the Editor may consult additional reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, or independent experts before issuing the decision.

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, language and format checking, layout preparation, metadata verification, and proofreading. The corresponding author is responsible for reviewing the final proof and confirming that the published version is accurate before online publication.