Peer Review Process

1. Submission

Authors submit their manuscript through the secure submission form, following the author guidelines. The submission must be original, not under consideration elsewhere, and accompanied by the required author details and declarations.

Authors provide an anonymized manuscript for review, removing names, affiliations, acknowledgements that reveal identity, and identifying file metadata. Editorial staff check the reviewer version and reviewer-facing information before they are shared.

2. Editorial screening and desk rejection

The editorial team checks the manuscript's fit with the journal's aims and scope, originality, potential scholarly contribution, basic methodological soundness, presentation, and ethical compliance before inviting reviewers.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage without external peer review (desk rejection) for:

• Being outside the journal's scope or lacking a relevant scholarly contribution.
• Fundamental methodological weaknesses or conclusions unsupported by the evidence.
• Plagiarism, duplicate submission or publication, or serious research-ethics concerns.
• Presentation or language problems that prevent a meaningful scholarly assessment.
• Serious or unresolved failure to meet submission requirements.

3. Plagiarism and originality check

Before external review, the editorial office checks for plagiarism, inappropriate reuse of text, and duplicate publication. Any similarity findings are assessed in context, including quotations, references, and legitimate overlap with methods descriptions; a similarity percentage alone does not determine a decision.

Authors may be asked to clarify or correct concerns. Serious or unresolved concerns can result in rejection and further handling under the publication ethics policy. Similarity checks do not replace scholarly review.

4. Reviewer selection

Editors select reviewers for their expertise in the manuscript's subject and methods, relevant research experience, ability to assess the submission language, and availability. Independence and potential conflicts of interest are checked before an assignment is accepted.

Reviewers must not be authors of the submission or have relationships that compromise impartiality. Invitations use editor-approved anonymized information. Reviewers must disclose conflicts and decline when they cannot provide an independent assessment.

5. Assessment by at least two independent reviewers

At least two independent reviewers provide reports on each manuscript sent for external review. They assess originality, methodological rigor, theoretical and practical contribution, clarity, evidence supporting the conclusions, and ethical compliance.

Reports provide constructive comments and recommendations to accept, request minor revisions, request major revisions, or reject. Where reports conflict or further expertise is needed, the editor may seek an additional independent review rather than treat the reports as a vote.

6. Revision and reassessment

When revision is requested, authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and editorial instructions. They submit a revised anonymized manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining changes or giving a reasoned response to recommendations they have not adopted.

The editor evaluates the revision and may return it to reviewers, particularly after major revisions. Further rounds may be needed. An invitation to revise is not a guarantee of acceptance.

7. Final editorial decision

The Editor-in-Chief has responsibility for the final academic decision, considering the independent reports, the authors' responses, the revised manuscript, and the journal's scholarly and ethical standards. Reviewers advise; they do not make the final decision.

The decision is communicated to the corresponding author with reasons and any remaining requirements. Acceptance is based on academic merit and ethical compliance, not on payment of publication charges.

8. Copyediting

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting for clarity, consistency, language, references, and journal formatting. Editorial queries are resolved with the authors. Substantive changes affecting the research must be referred back for editorial assessment.

9. Author proof

Authors receive a proof to check the accuracy of the text, author details, tables, figures, and references. They return corrections and approval before publication. Proof correction is not a stage for introducing unreviewed findings or substantial new content.

10. Publication

Following final checks and proof approval, the article is published in the journal's open-access online archive under the stated copyright and licensing policy. Any concerns identified after publication are handled under the journal's correction, retraction, and ethics procedures.

Conflicts of interest and editorial independence

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, and personal relationships that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the assessment.

Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves where impartiality is compromised, including close personal relationships, recent co-authorship or collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, financial interests, or direct competitive interests. Confidential manuscripts and unpublished findings must not be shared or used for personal advantage.

A submission involving an editor or Editorial Board member is handled independently; that person must not select reviewers or participate in the decision on their own work. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict, the final academic decision is delegated to an independent, non-conflicted editor.

Editorial decisions and timing

The communicated outcome may be acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. A manuscript that fails initial screening can be rejected without proceeding through the later stages.

The typical timeframe for an initial editorial decision is 4–6 weeks, not a guaranteed deadline or a promise of publication within that period. Reviewer availability, additional review, ethical inquiries, and revision rounds may extend the process.