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 recognized 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. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, and relevance to the manuscript topic. All reviews are conducted under a double-blind peer review model, where the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and peer review reports are treated as confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal or professional advantage outside the editorial and peer review process. Reviewers must not contact authors directly at any stage of the peer review process.

4. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and scientific contribution. The journal aims to complete the peer review process within a reasonable timeframe, typically within 2–4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based feedback to support editorial decision-making.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions:

– Accept

– Minor Revision

– Major Revision

– Reject

Editorial decisions are made independently based on academic merit and are not influenced by financial considerations, including Article Processing Charges (APCs).

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the Editorial Office, and appeals will be handled in accordance with journal policies.

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 handling 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. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the integrity of the editorial process.

This peer review process follows best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and international scholarly publishing and ethical standards.

Review Timeline

The average time for the peer review process is approximately 2–4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Following peer review, the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer recommendations and editorial evaluation.