Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts, with the exception of specific editorial materials (such as editorials, commentaries, and correspondence), are subjected to a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This ensures objectivity by keeping both the authors’ identities and the reviewers’ identities strictly confidential throughout the evaluation.

Initial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Associate Editor to assess its suitability with respect to:

  • The journal’s scope

  • Originality and scientific merit

  • Ethical compliance

  • Adherence to submission guidelines

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Plagiarism Screening

Authors are required to conduct a similarity check prior to submission and provide a similarity report along with their manuscript.

The Editorial Office evaluates the submitted similarity report and reserves the right to perform additional similarity screening when deemed necessary to ensure academic integrity.

Manuscripts with an excessive similarity index or evidence of plagiarism will be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification or revision.

Review Procedure and Timeline

Each eligible manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers selected by the Associate Editor based on their field of expertise.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

  • Scientific validity and methodological rigor

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Ethical standards

  • Clarity and organization of presentation

Reviewer comments and recommendations are delivered anonymously to the corresponding author.

Authors are required to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer comments.

Reviewers are typically requested to submit their evaluation report within a maximum of six weeks.

The average time from submission to first decision is approximately 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the revision process.

In cases where securing appropriate specialized reviewers requires additional time, the corresponding author will be notified of any delay.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the recommendation of the handling Associate Editor, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, which may be:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific merit, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and adherence to ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before participating in the evaluation process. Individuals with conflicts of interest will not be involved in the review or decision-making process for the respective manuscript.