Review Process

We are supported by an experienced editorial team and expert peer reviewers committed to upholding the highest academic standards through a rigorous initial evaluation and peer-review process.
This ensures the integrity, originality, scholarly quality, and global discoverability of published articles through high-impact indexing, DOI assignment, and Crossref certification.

Understanding the Double-Blind Peer Review System

Double-blind peer review is the "gold standard" of scholarly publishing. In this model, the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is concealed from the authors. This ensures that the manuscript is judged solely on its scientific merit, removing potential biases related to the author's gender, seniority, institutional affiliation, or nationality.

Workflow Stage Process Description & Rigor
1. Anonymization Authors remove all direct references (names, affiliations, acknowledgments) from the manuscript. Self-citations are phrased in the third person to prevent identity leakage.
2. Editorial Gatekeeping The Editorial Office performs a technical check, separating the "Title Page" from the "Main Manuscript" to ensure reviewers receive only blinded files.
3. Expert Selection The Editor identifies at least two independent subject-matter experts with no institutional or collaborative conflicts of interest with the authors.
4. Objective Review Reviewers conduct a critical analysis. This creates a "level playing field" where research is scrutinized based on methodology rather than the author's reputation.
5. Reconciliation The Editor-in-Chief synthesizes reports. If feedback is contradictory, a third blind reviewer is recruited to provide a tie-breaking decision.
To ensure your journal meets the rigorous transparency requirements for Scopus and DOAJ, the content must be professional, structurally clear, and authoritative. Building on your existing style, here is the complete workflow and decision-making content to follow your table.

The Editorial Screening: Pre-Review Rigor

Before a manuscript enters the double-blind phase, it undergoes a Preliminary Editorial Screening. This stage is designed to protect the time of our expert reviewers and ensure that only high-quality, relevant research proceeds.

  • Scope Alignment: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates if the research contributes meaningfully to the journal’s specific themes.
  • Plagiarism Detection: All submissions are cross-referenced using iThenticate/Turnitin. Manuscripts with a high similarity index or evidence of redundant publication are rejected immediately.
  • Technical Compliance: The Editorial Office ensures the manuscript is fully anonymized. If author names or affiliations are found within the text, the paper is returned to the author for correction before further processing.

How Editors Manage the "Double-Blind" Integrity

Maintaining the "blind" nature of the review is a sophisticated process managed through our editorial management system:

  1. File Separation: Upon submission, authors must upload a Title Page (containing metadata) and a Blinded Manuscript (containing no identifying info) as separate files.
  2. Reviewer Selection: Editors select reviewers based on their publication record in Scopus/Web of Science. To avoid bias, editors ensure that reviewers are not from the same institution as the authors and have no known recent collaborations.
  3. Communication Firewall: All correspondence between authors and reviewers is mediated through the Editor. Direct contact is strictly prohibited to preserve the objectivity of the evaluation.

Final Decision Pathways

The final decision is not merely a vote but a weighted editorial judgment based on the technical depth of the review reports. The outcomes are categorized as follows:

Accept as Is The manuscript meets all technical and stylistic requirements. It is sent directly to the production team for DOI assignment.
Minor Revisions The paper is scientifically sound but requires small adjustments to text, formatting, or citations. The Editor usually reviews these changes without sending them back to reviewers.
Major Revisions The research has potential but requires significant data analysis, structural changes, or theoretical strengthening. The revised paper will undergo a second round of double-blind review.
Reject The manuscript contains fundamental flaws in methodology, fails to provide a novel contribution, or violates ethical standards. Rejections are final.

Transparency and Ethics

In accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards, our journal provides authors with the full, anonymized text of the reviewer reports. This transparency ensures that even in the case of a rejection, authors receive constructive feedback to improve their future work.