Review Guidelines
The peer-review process is the essential mechanism for maintaining the quality and integrity of academic research. Our journal adheres to the Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Every submission is subjected to a rigorous evaluation to ensure that only original, methodologically sound, and significant research is added to the global body of knowledge.
1. The Double-Blind Review Model
To eliminate bias and ensure an objective assessment, we employ a Double-Blind Peer Review model:
- Anonymity: The identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is concealed from the authors throughout the entire process.
- Independence: Reviewers are independent experts not affiliated with the authors' institutions or previous research collaborations.
2. Comprehensive Procedural Workflow
Stage I: Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
Upon submission, the Editorial Office performs a preliminary check. Manuscripts may be "Desk Rejected" if they:
- Fall outside the Journal's Aims and Scope.
- Exceed the 15% plagiarism threshold (Turnitin/iThenticate).
- Lack fundamental methodological rigor or clear scholarly English.
Stage II: Assignment of External Reviewers
Manuscripts passing Stage I are assigned to a minimum of two independent subject-matter experts. The editors select reviewers based on their publication record, expertise, and reputation for providing high-quality, constructive feedback.
Stage III: Formal Evaluation
Reviewers are given 3–5 weeks to provide a detailed report. They evaluate the manuscript based on:
- Originality & Novelty: Does the paper offer a new contribution to the field?
- Technical Rigor: Are the research design and statistical analyses appropriate and correct?
- Ethics: Are there concerns regarding human/animal subject approvals or data fabrication?
Stage IV: Editorial Decision
The Handling Editor synthesizes the reviewer reports. If the reports are conflicting, a third "Adjudicating Reviewer" is appointed to break the tie. The final decision is communicated to the author with the full (anonymized) reviewer comments.
3. Quality & Efficiency Metrics
| Journal Metric | Standard Target |
|---|---|
| Initial Screening Time | 3–7 Days |
| First Decision (After Review) | 4–6 Weeks |
| Acceptance Rate | 30% (Competitive Indexing Standard) |
| Similarity Index Limit | Below 15% (Strictly enforced) |
4. Ethical Requirements for Reviewers
Reviewers must abide by the following COPE-aligned ethical mandates:
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any competing interests (financial, personal, or professional) and recuse themselves if a conflict exists.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts are privileged documents. Reviewers must not discuss, share, or download the work onto public servers.
- Constructive Criticism: Tone must be professional and non-insulting. The goal is to help the author improve their scientific contribution.
- Integrity: Reviewers should alert the editor immediately if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data manipulation.
5. Post-Review Workflow
Minor/Major Revisions: Authors are expected to submit a "Response to Reviewers" table detailing every change made. The Editor may send the revised paper back to the original reviewers to verify the corrections.
Acceptance: Once the Editor-in-Chief is satisfied that all scientific and ethical requirements have been met, a formal Acceptance Letter is issued. The manuscript then enters the production/typesetting phase.
Note for Authors & Reviewers: Our journal's peer-review process is designed to be a collaborative effort to ensure scientific excellence. We value the time and expertise of our reviewers and provide official recognition certificates for all completed reviews.
