The Journal follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic validity of published research.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial office to assess scope alignment, completeness, and basic quality standards. All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using plagiarism detection software as part of the editorial review process.

2. Assignment to Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to an academic editor with relevant subject expertise.

3. Reviewer Selection

Independent expert reviewers are invited based on their scholarly expertise. The Journal follows a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed. Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review invitation.

All reviews are conducted under a double-blind peer review model unless otherwise stated on the journal website.

4. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and scientific contribution.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

– Accept

– Minor Revision

– Major Revision

– Reject

6. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors submit revised manuscripts addressing reviewer comments. Revised submissions may be re-reviewed if required.

7. Final Decision and Publication

Once all concerns are satisfactorily addressed, the editor makes the final decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production and publication.

“Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or delegated Associate Editors based on reviewer recommendations and editorial judgment.”

This Peer Review Process follows best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).