PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Stages of the Peer Review Process

1. Manuscript Submission

The author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission system, including all required metadata and declarations of originality and ethical compliance.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editor undertakes an initial assessment to determine the manuscript’s suitability for further consideration, including an evaluation of its alignment with the journal’s scope, compliance with formatting and author guidelines, linguistic quality and clarity, and adherence to publication ethics, including the absence of plagiarism.

Outcome:

• The manuscript is rejected at the editorial level (desk rejection), or
• The manuscript is advanced to the peer review stage.

 3. Assignment to Section Editor

The Editor-in-Chief officially delegates the manuscript to a designated Section Editor or Handling Editor who possesses appropriate subject-matter expertise and is responsible for overseeing the subsequent editorial and peer review processes.

 4. Selection of Reviewers

The Section Editor, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief during an editorial board meeting, appoints two or more independent reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewer selection is conducted based on demonstrated subject-matter expertise, established academic credentials and publication record, and the absence of any actual or potential conflicts of interest, The peer review process may be conducted under Double-blind review.

 5. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers conduct a rigorous and independent evaluation of the manuscript, focusing on its originality, novelty, and overall scholarly contribution to the field. The assessment encompasses the robustness and appropriateness of the theoretical framework and research methodology, the validity and depth of data analysis and interpretation, the relevance, currency, and adequacy of cited references, as well as the coherence, structural integrity, and quality of academic writing.

 

 6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed comments and one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

7. Editorial Decision

The editor, through deliberation in an editorial meeting convened with the Editor-in-Chief, thoroughly reviews and synthesizes the reviewers’ reports and recommendations and, upon collective consideration, issues a formal editorial decision, which is officially communicated to the author in accordance with the journal’s established procedures.

 

 8. Manuscript Revision by Author

The author revises the manuscript in accordance with reviewer comments and submits:

• A revised manuscript
• A point-by-point response to reviewers

9. Re-review (If Necessary)

In cases requiring major revisions, the revised manuscript may be resubmitted to the original reviewers for additional evaluation and verification of the adequacy of the revisions.

 

10. Final Decision

Upon comprehensive consideration of the revised manuscript and the reviewers’ evaluations, the Editorial Board, under the coordination of the Editor-in-Chief, renders a final editorial decision, resulting in either the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

11. Copyediting and Proofreading

Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo comprehensive copyediting, linguistic refinement, formatting standardization, and thorough verification of references in accordance with the journal’s editorial and publication standards.

12. Publication

The article is published on the journal’s official website pursuant to the journal’s publication policy and schedule.