Peer Review Process

The Importance of Peer Review

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that research published in academic journals meets high standards of quality, credibility, and integrity. It serves as an independent evaluation mechanism, involving experts in the field who critically assess submitted manuscripts. This rigorous process, overseen by the journal’s editor, validates the research and enhances its contribution to the academic community. The peer review process achieves two primary objectives:

Filter for Quality

Peer review acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only research demonstrating validity, significance, and originality is published. Reviewers evaluate the methodology, data, arguments, and conclusions to confirm that the work is robust, reproducible, and contributes meaningfully to the field. This filtering process protects the journal’s reputation and ensures readers can trust the published content.

Improve Research

Beyond gatekeeping, peer review provides authors with constructive feedback to refine their work. Reviewers identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement, offering suggestions to enhance clarity, rigor, and impact. This collaborative aspect of peer review fosters better science and scholarship, benefiting both authors and the broader academic community.

By balancing these dual roles, peer review upholds the integrity of academic publishing while supporting authors in producing their best work.

Our Review Method

The journal employs a structured, transparent, and impartial peer review process to evaluate submitted manuscripts. Below is a detailed breakdown of each stage in the review procedure, designed to ensure fairness, thoroughness, and efficiency:

Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript to determine its suitability for the journal. This assessment considers whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, adheres to submission guidelines, and meets basic standards of scholarly quality (e.g., clarity, organization, and relevance). The Editor-in-Chief also checks for any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the review process. If the manuscript is deemed unsuitable (e.g., due to poor quality or mismatch with the journal’s focus), it may be desk-rejected at this stage, saving time for both authors and reviewers.

Conflict of Interest Handling

To maintain objectivity, the journal has a clear protocol for handling conflicts of interest. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict (e.g., a personal or professional relationship with the authors, involvement in similar research, or other biases), they recuse themselves from overseeing the manuscript. In such cases, the Editorial Office assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor (sometimes referred to as a Helper Editor), who assumes responsibility for managing the review process. This step ensures that decisions are made impartially and that the review process remains free from bias.

Reviewer Assignment

Once the manuscript passes the editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Associate Editor) selects two qualified reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area, ensuring they have the knowledge and experience to provide an informed and critical assessment. The editor may consider reviewers suggested by the authors (see “Suggesting Reviewers” below) but is not obligated to use them. The goal is to appoint reviewers who can offer objective, authoritative, and constructive feedback.

Double-Blind Review

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, a widely respected method for minimizing bias. In this system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other. Authors’ names, affiliations, and other identifying information are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors. This anonymity encourages honest, unbiased evaluations and reduces the risk of favoritism or prejudice based on reputation, institution, or personal relationships. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on criteria such as:

  • Validity: Are the research methods sound and the results reliable?
  • Significance: Does the work advance knowledge in the field?
  • Originality: Is the research novel and not redundant with existing literature?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and accessible to the journal’s audience?
  • Ethical Standards: Does the research adhere to ethical guidelines (e.g., proper citation, data integrity, and authorship transparency)?

Reviewers provide detailed feedback, including strengths, weaknesses, and specific recommendations for improvement, and submit their reports to the editor.

Decision Notification

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Associate Editor) makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication as is or with minor revisions.
  • Revise: The manuscript has potential but requires revisions (major or minor) to address reviewer concerns.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards due to significant flaws in quality, originality, or relevance.

The editor communicates the decision to the Corresponding Author via email, along with the reviewers’ comments and any additional editorial guidance. This feedback is intended to be constructive, helping authors understand the rationale behind the decision and how to improve their work, even in cases of rejection.

Revision Stage

If revisions are requested, authors are invited to revise and resubmit their manuscript, addressing the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. The journal typically expects the revised manuscript to be submitted within one month to maintain continuity in the review process. If authors require more time, they should communicate with the Editorial Office to avoid restarting the review process from scratch. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions and the editor’s discretion. The editor evaluates the revised submission to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed before making a final decision.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published twice a year, typically in two issues released at regular intervals (e.g., spring and fall). This biannual schedule allows for a steady dissemination of high-quality research while maintaining rigorous editorial and peer review standards. Authors should plan their submissions with this schedule in mind, noting that the peer review process and subsequent revisions may take several months before publication.

Suggesting Reviewers

To assist in identifying suitable reviewers, authors are required to propose two potential reviewers during the submission process. These suggestions help the editor identify experts who can provide informed and relevant feedback. However, the Managing Editor retains full discretion over reviewer selection and is not obligated to use the authors’ suggestions. To ensure the integrity and impartiality of the review process, the following guidelines apply when suggesting reviewers:

Guidelines for Suggesting Reviewers:

  • Expertise and Relevance: Suggested reviewers should have recognized expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. Authors may propose researchers whose work is cited in the manuscript or members of the journal’s Editorial Board with relevant expertise.
  • Contact Information: Authors must provide accurate and specific contact details for each suggested reviewer, including: Full name, Institutional affiliation and address, Verified institutional email address, Phone number (if available), A link to the reviewer’s professional homepage or profile (e.g., university page, ORCID, or ResearchGate). These details should be entered in Step 1 of the online submission process.
  • Independence: Suggested reviewers must be independent and impartial. They should not: Be current collaborators of any co-authors (e.g., co-authors on recent projects or grants), Have co-published with any of the manuscript’s authors within the last five years, Be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors. These restrictions prevent conflicts of interest and ensure objective evaluations.
  • Editorial Board or Cited Researchers: Authors may suggest relevant members of the journal’s Editorial Board or researchers whose work is frequently cited in the manuscript. This can help align reviewer expertise with the manuscript’s content.

By adhering to these guidelines, authors contribute to a fair and efficient reviewer selection process, while the editor maintains control to uphold the journal’s standards.

Additional Considerations

  • Transparency and Ethics: The peer review process is conducted with the highest ethical standards. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and authors must ensure their submissions are original, properly cited, and free from plagiarism or misconduct.
  • Timeliness: The journal strives to conduct the peer review process efficiently, but the duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the need for revisions. Authors are encouraged to respond promptly to revision requests to avoid delays.
  • Appeals: In rare cases, authors may appeal a rejection decision by contacting the Editorial Office with a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor, but the original decision is typically upheld unless clear errors in the review process are identified.