Peer Review Policy

Peer review ensures that published research meets the highest standards of quality, originality, relevance, and integrity. The process helps maintain the credibility of scholarly publications and supports the advancement of knowledge.

1.Our journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process:

• The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

2.This approach minimizes bias and promotes fair evaluation.

1. Initial Screening
• The editorial team screens all submissions for scope, originality, and plagiarism before peer review.
• Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements are rejected at this stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment

• Suitable experts in the field are invited to review the manuscript.
• Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

3. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Originality and significance of the research
• Methodological rigor and accuracy
• Quality of analysis, discussion, and conclusions
• Clarity, coherence, and referencing

4. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept (with or without minor revisions)
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
• Reject

5. Editorial Decision

• The editor-in-chief makes the final decision based on reviewer reports.
• Decisions and feedback are communicated to the authors within 6–8 weeks of submission.

• Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.
• Reviewers must not share or use the information for any purpose other than evaluation.

• Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest (financial, personal, or professional) and recuse themselves if necessary.
• Editors also avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers where conflicts exist.

The journal adheres to COPE guidelines for ethical peer review and handles allegations of misconduct in accordance with their flowcharts.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a clear justification. Appeals will be reviewed by the editorial board or an independent reviewer.