Peer Review Policy

1. Double-Blind Peer Review System
The journal upholds a double-blind peer review process to maintain objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of submissions. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This ensures that the evaluation is based solely on the content and quality of the manuscript, free from bias or influence.

2. Submission and Screening
Manuscripts can be submitted to the journal at any time during the year. Upon receipt, they are subjected to an initial screening by the editorial team to verify adherence to the journal's submission guidelines, including formatting and relevance to the journal's scope. Following this, the manuscript is assigned to a screening committee consisting of two reviewers appointed by the editorial board.

3. Evaluation Process and Decision Categories
The reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as originality, relevance, methodology, clarity, and overall contribution to the field. Each manuscript is then classified into one of the following categories:

• Publishable: The manuscript meets all quality standards and is accepted for publication.

• Publishable after Revision: The manuscript has merit but requires minor or moderate revisions before being considered for publication.

• Reevaluation after Revision: Significant revisions are needed, and the resubmitted version will undergo a new review process.

• Not Publishable: The manuscript does not meet the required standards or relevance for the journal and is rejected.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide detailed and constructive feedback through the peer review form. Their comments should guide authors in improving the quality and clarity of their manuscripts, addressing any weaknesses or inconsistencies. Reviewers' recommendations play a crucial role in decision-making, but the editorial board retains the authority to make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.

5. Revision and Reevaluation
If a manuscript is categorized as “reevaluation after revision,” the authors are encouraged to revise the submission thoroughly based on the reviewers' feedback. The revised manuscript will then be treated as a new submission, undergoing the complete review process again.

6. Timeline for Evaluation
The journal endeavors to provide authors with the results of the initial review process within 30 days of submission. However, manuscripts requiring extensive revisions or multiple rounds of review may take additional time to process. Authors are encouraged to address reviewers' comments promptly to minimize delays in the evaluation timeline.

7. Transparency and Integrity
The journal is committed to maintaining transparency and fairness in the peer review process. Any potential conflicts of interest are addressed to ensure unbiased evaluations. This policy reflects the journal's dedication to upholding high academic standards and fostering constructive scholarly dialogue.