Peer Review Process

The Importance of Peer Review

All articles submitted to our journals undergo a rigorous peer-review process. This critical step is overseen by the journal editor, who appoints qualified reviewers.

Filter for Quality

To act as a filter, assessing the validity, significance, and originality of the work, ensuring only high-quality research is published.

Improve Research

To provide authors with constructive feedback, giving reviewers the opportunity to suggest improvements to the quality of the submitted research.

Our Review Method

Each manuscript submitted is subjected to the following review procedure:

  1. Editorial Assessment:  The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's general suitability for publication, assuming no conflict of interest exists.
  2. Conflict of Interest Handling:  If a conflict of interest arises for the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Office assigns the paper to an Associate Editor (Helper Editor).
  3. Reviewer Assignment:  The Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Associate Editor) appoints two suitable Reviewers for an impartial evaluation.
  4. Double-Blind Review:  The Journal employs a double-blind peer review process. Reviewer and Author identities are concealed from each other. Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor decides on acceptance, revision, or rejection.
  5. Decision Notification:  The Editor communicates the decision, along with editor and reviewer comments, to the Corresponding Author via email.
  6. Revision Stage:  Authors may be invited to revise their manuscript based on feedback. The updated manuscript is expected within one month; otherwise, the review process may need to be restarted.

Publication Frequency

This Journal is published twice a year.

Suggesting Reviewers

During the submission process, authors are asked to propose two suitable reviewers with recognized expertise relevant to their manuscript. Please note that the Managing Editor is not obligated to use these suggestions.

Important Considerations for Suggestions:

  • Provide specific contact details (address, homepage, phone, verified institutional e-mail address) in Step 1 of submission.
  • Proposed reviewers should not be current collaborators of any co-authors.
  • Ensure no co-publication between authors and suggested reviewers within the last five years.
  • Reviewers must be from different institutions than the authors.

Authors may also suggest relevant members of this journal's Editorial Board or researchers whose work is frequently cited within their manuscript as potential reviewers.