Peer Review Process

Peer review is the heartbeat of scholarly publishing. It ensures that each manuscript is evaluated with fairness, rigor, and respect before becoming part of the scientific record. This process is not merely procedural—it is a collective effort that strengthens research, guides authors, and safeguards trust in science.

Principles of Peer Review

• Fairness: Every manuscript is judged on merit, not on the identity or background of its authors.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts are private documents, reviewed with discretion and respect.
• Constructive Feedback: Reviews are intended to guide and strengthen, not to discourage.
• Transparency: Decisions are communicated clearly, with reasons grounded in evidence.

Stages of the Process

1. Submission: Authors upload manuscripts through the Online Journal System (OJS). Metadata, cover letters, and declarations of conflicts of interest are required at this stage.
2. Initial Editorial Screening: The editor-in-chief or associate editor checks for scope, formatting, ethical compliance, and originality.
3. Reviewer Assignment: Qualified reviewers are selected based on expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.
4. Double-Blind Review: Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous, ensuring impartiality.
5. Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers assess originality, methodology, clarity, and ethical standards. They provide constructive feedback and a recommendation: accept, revise, or reject.
6. Editorial Decision: Editors weigh reviewer reports, add judgment where needed, and issue a decision with supporting rationale.
7. Revision and Resubmission: Authors are invited to address reviewer feedback. Point-by-point responses are encouraged to maintain clarity.
8. Final Decision: After revisions, editors confirm whether the manuscript meets publication standards. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production.

Types of Decisions

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no changes.
• Minor Revision: Modest changes are requested, usually relating to clarity or presentation.
• Major Revision: Substantive improvements are required in methodology, analysis, or structure.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet standards for publication, but authors may benefit from constructive feedback for future work.

Ethical Oversight

If misconduct is suspected—such as plagiarism, data falsification, or duplicate submission—the editor investigates following established policies. Authors may be asked for clarification, and appropriate action is taken to uphold integrity. Transparency and fairness guide every step of this process.

Reviewer Anonymity

The journal follows a double-blind process: identities of both reviewers and authors remain hidden throughout review. This protects impartiality and reduces unconscious bias. Exceptions may be considered only with mutual consent and under strict ethical oversight.

Timeliness

Review cycles typically last 2–4 weeks. Editors strive to minimize delays, recognizing that time is precious for authors. Authors are updated at each stage to maintain transparency and trust in the process.

Why Peer Review Matters

Peer review protects the credibility of the scholarly record. It helps authors improve clarity, prevents the spread of flawed or unethical research, and strengthens the dialogue of science. By engaging respectfully, reviewers and editors ensure that published work is reliable, impactful, and worthy of trust.

Conclusion

The peer review process is not a barrier but a bridge. It transforms individual manuscripts into contributions of enduring value. By approaching review with fairness, confidentiality, and generosity, we honor the collective mission of science: to pursue truth and share it openly for the benefit of all.