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 represents a well-established approach for the critical evaluation of scholarly research. 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 their names, affiliations, and acknowledgments from the manuscript. Any self-citations are written in third person so the reviewers cannot identify the authors. |
| 2. Editorial Gatekeeping | The editorial team checks the submission and separates the "Title Page" from the "Main Manuscript" so that reviewers receive only anonymous files. |
| 3. Expert Selection | The editor selects at least two independent experts in the subject area who have no institutional or research connections with the authors. |
| 4. Objective Review | Reviewers carefully evaluate the manuscript. The focus is on the quality of the research and methodology rather than the reputation of the authors. |
| 5. Reconciliation | The Editor-in-Chief reviews all feedback. If reviewers disagree, a third anonymous reviewer may be invited to help make the final decision. |
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.
Preliminary Review Timeline: The initial editorial screening of submitted manuscripts is typically completed within 7 days of submission.
How Editors Manage the "Double-Blind" Integrity
Maintaining the "blind" nature of the review is a sophisticated process managed through our editorial management system:
- File Separation: Upon submission, authors must upload a Title Page (containing metadata) and a Blinded Manuscript (containing no identifying info) as separate files.
- 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.
- 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.
Peer Review Timeline: The complete double-blind peer-review process usually takes approximately 6–7 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
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. |
Publication Timeline
Once a manuscript is accepted, the final production process including formatting, DOI assignment, and online publication is completed within approximately 7 days.
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.
