For Reviewers

  1. Peer Review Model

The journal adopts a double-blind peer-review system to ensure objectivity and maintain the highest scholarly standards. Identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

2.1. Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  1. Originality and Novelty
    • Does the manuscript present new findings or significant advancements?
    • Is the work free from plagiarism or duplicate publication?
  2. Clarity and Structure
    • Are the research objectives clearly stated?
    • Is the manuscript well-organized and coherent across sections (introduction, methods, results, discussion)?
  3. Methodological Quality
    • Are the methods appropriate, valid, and reproducible?
    • Is the data analysis accurate and logically interpreted?
  4. Relevance and Scientific Contribution
    • Is the manuscript aligned with the journal’s aims and scope?
    • Does the study demonstrate scientific significance?
  5. Ethical Compliance
    • The manuscript must adhere to ethical publication standards without data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation.

2.2. Providing Feedback

Reviewers should:

  • Offer constructive, clear, and respectful comments aimed at improving the manuscript.
  • Provide a recommendation:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  • Include confidential remarks for the editor if necessary.
  • Avoid personal criticism or inappropriate language.

2.3. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

  • Treat the manuscript as confidential material.
  • Not use any part of the unpublished work for personal advantage.
  • Refrain from sharing or discussing the manuscript with others without the editor’s permission.

2.4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should immediately inform the editor of any potential conflicts, such as:

  • Financial or professional relationships with the authors.
  • Recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors.
  • Personal or academic competition that may bias the review.

If the conflict is significant, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

  1. Review Process Overview
  2. Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system (e.g., OJS).

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team evaluates the manuscript for:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Plagiarism check (Turnitin/iThenticate)
  • Compliance with author guidelines
    Manuscripts failing initial criteria may receive desk rejection.
  1. Reviewer Assignment

The editor assigns 2–3 qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers conduct an in-depth evaluation and submit:

  • Detailed comments
  • Editorial notes (optional)
  • A formal recommendation
  1. First Editorial Decision

The editor assesses reviewer comments and determines the next step:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  1. Revision Stage

Authors revise the manuscript and upload:

  • The revised manuscript
  • A point-by-point response to reviewer comments
  1. Second Round Review (If Required)

For major revisions or methodological concerns, reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate the revised manuscript.

  1. Final Decision

The editor makes a final decision based on the review process:

  • Accepted
  • Rejected
  • Further revision required
  1. Copyediting & Proofreading

The accepted manuscript undergoes language editing, formatting, and reference style adjustments.

  1. Publication

The article is published online (and in print if applicable) as part of the journal’s scheduled issue.