Peer-Review Policies

  1. Following preliminary approval, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial board, selects two peer reviewers. The research will then undergo a double-blind peer review to assess its suitability for publication.
  2. The editorial board ensures the quality of submitted research by assigning reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject matter.
  3. The board maintains the confidentiality of the research and researcher information during the review process.
  4. The editorial board ensures geographic diversity among reviewers and avoids appointing all reviewers from a single institution.
  5. The editorial board is committed to implementing the researcher’s request to exclude specific reviewers before appointing the reviewers, provided the reasons and justifications are satisfactory. Reviewers are also required to disclose any conflict of interest before agreeing to undertake the review.
  6. The editorial board exercises its authority with integrity, objectivity, and fairness, ensuring non-discrimination based on non-academic factors.
  7. Reviewers must respond to the initial reviewing invitation within three days and complete the review process within two weeks of acceptance.
  8. Reviewers are required to maintain impartiality and scientific integrity.
  9. Reviewers must decline review assignments if the research falls outside their expertise or competence.
  10. Reviewers must treat received research as confidential documents and not discuss them with others unless permitted by the Editor-in-Chief.
  11. Reviewers must not exploit the content of the research under review for personal or third-party benefit.
  12. Reviewers must provide detailed feedback using the approved reviewing template, focusing their comments on the research and avoiding personal remarks about the researcher.
  13. If plagiarism or academic misconduct is identified, reviewers must specify the problematic sections and provide evidence.
  14. Researchers will be informed of the review results within two weeks of the journal receiving the reviewers’ reports. This includes acceptance feedback or rejection notifications.
  15. Research requiring revisions will be returned to the authors, who must implement the changes within the journal’s specified timeframe and justify any unaddressed recommendations.
  16. The researcher is granted a publication acceptance statement once the final version of the research, incorporating reviewer feedback, is approved.
Scroll to Top