Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to a rigorous peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and scientific integrity, in accordance with COPE guidelines. After receipt of the manuscript from the author and initial screening by the Editorial Board to ensure compliance with the journal’s submission requirements, including plagiarism detection and ethical clearance, the manuscript is forwarded to a confidential peer review committee (typically two reviewers per manuscript) under a Double-Blind Peer Review system. The reviewers are unaware of the author’s identity, and the author does not know the identity of the reviewers; both parties interact solely through the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Each manuscript is assigned to reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity, significance, and scientific contribution. Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

Peer Review Process

Manuscript Submission
The peer review process begins when authors submit their manuscript via the journal’s electronic submission system through the corresponding author.
Editorial Office Screening
The Editorial Board checks whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s author guidelines. The scientific quality is not assessed at this stage.
Editor-in-Chief Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief assesses the manuscript in terms of scope, originality, and scientific merit to determine whether it proceeds to peer review. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal scope or contain obvious major flaws.
Assignment of Associate/Handling Editor
An Associate or Handling Editor may be appointed to oversee the peer review process.
Reviewer Invitation
If the manuscript is accepted for review, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor invites potential reviewers until the required number is secured—usually two reviewers. The handling editor supervises the process and communicates reports to the Editor-in-Chief.
Response to Invitations
Invited reviewers evaluate the request based on expertise, conflict of interest, and availability, and may accept or decline. If declined, alternative reviewers may be suggested.
Evaluation of Reviews
The handling editor reviews all reports before making a decision. In cases of significant disagreement, an additional reviewer may be consulted, or members of the editorial advisory board may be involved before a final decision is made.
Decision Communication
The editor sends a decision email to the author, including anonymized reviewer comments under a Double-Blind Review model.
Next Steps
If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to production. If rejected or returned for revision, constructive reviewer feedback is provided to the author. In case of revision, reviewers may be invited to evaluate the revised manuscript unless they opt out. Minor revisions may be handled directly by the editorial office. Authors may appeal editorial decisions with justified arguments, in which case the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer for a final decision.

The peer review process typically takes 3–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Evaluation Criteria

Scope: Manuscripts must fall within the journal’s thematic scope.
Novelty: The study must be original and address a significant research question, with potential applicability beyond the immediate study context.
Methodology: The approach must be clear, appropriate, rigorous, and up to date.
Conclusions: Conclusions must be sufficiently supported by the data and warrant publication.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide objective and constructive criticism. Reviews must be impartial, clear, and supportive of authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers must adhere to the following:

Do not accept a review solely for access to the manuscript without intention to provide a report.
Do not accept a review if the manuscript is too similar to work under preparation or review elsewhere, and inform the editor in such cases.
Report any ethical concerns, misconduct, or potential research integrity issues directly to the journal without independent investigation, maintaining strict confidentiality.
Maintain confidentiality of all reviewed manuscripts and do not use any information for personal gain.
Decline review invitations if lacking appropriate expertise or availability.
Complete reviews in a timely manner to avoid delaying publication.
Disclose any conflict of interest, including financial, institutional, personal, or academic relationships that may affect impartiality.
Do not involve third parties in the review process without prior permission from the journal.
Do not request citation of the reviewer’s own work unless scientifically justified.
Avoid bias and respect intellectual property and scholarly contributions.

If a reviewer recognizes the identity of the author and identifies a potential conflict of interest, this must be disclosed immediately to the journal. Reviewers should not contact authors directly and must declare all potential competing interests. If uncertain about a conflict of interest, reviewers should inform the journal before proceeding.

Reviewer Report Guidelines

Formatting
Follow journal instructions for review submission. Use provided tools if specific formatting is required. Reviews must be objective, constructive, and focused on improving the manuscript.

Language and Style
The manuscript belongs to the authors; reviewers should suggest improvements for clarity but should not rewrite well-written sections.

General Guidance
Reviewers are responsible for assessing the quality and validity of the manuscript. If analyses are insufficient, reviewers should specify what additional analyses are required. However, reviewers should not expand the scope of the study beyond its original objectives.

Comments must not be overly brief or generic; they should be detailed, specific, and actionable. Vague statements should be avoided. Recommendations must be justified with clear reasoning. Reviews should not consist solely of grammatical corrections.

The journal follows and encourages adherence to COPE ethical standards for peer review to ensure transparency and integrity in the review process.

COPE Council. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers — English.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9