Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly background, publication record, and familiarity with the manuscript’s topic, to ensure an informed and balanced evaluation.
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript according to the following criteria:
- Scientific soundness and methodological rigor, including the appropriateness of the study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results;
- Originality and contribution to the field, evaluating whether the work advances current knowledge or provides meaningful insights relevant to the journal’s scope;
- Clarity of presentation and organization, including the coherence of the manuscript structure, the quality of figures and tables, and the clarity of the written text;
- Ethical considerations and data transparency, where applicable, including compliance with ethical standards, appropriate reporting of approvals or consent, and the availability and integrity of supporting data.
Reviewers are expected to provide confidential, constructive, and objective reports that offer clear recommendations and, where appropriate, practical suggestions for improving the manuscript. Reviewer comments are intended to support both the editorial decision-making process and the authors in strengthening the quality of their work.
Editorial Decision
Following the completion of the peer-review process, the editorial decision is based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment of the manuscript.
One of the following decisions may be issued:
- minor revision, indicating that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after limited revisions;
- major revision, indicating that substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered;
- reject, indicating that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to address all reviewer comments in a clear, structured, and timely manner. A detailed response to reviewers should be provided, explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where applicable, justifying why certain suggestions were not followed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation or assessed directly by the editor, at the editor’s discretion, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
Final acceptance of a manuscript is granted only after all required revisions have been satisfactorily completed, and the editor is confident that the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and ethical standards.
Confidentiality and Ethics
All manuscripts submitted to the journal, along with reviewer reports and editorial correspondence, are treated as strictly confidential throughout the editorial and peer-review process. Submitted manuscripts are not disclosed to individuals outside the editorial process, except where necessary for peer review and editorial evaluation.
Reviewers are required to:
- treat all manuscript materials and associated data as confidential;
- refrain from using any information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage;
- disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment; and
- decline review invitations where such conflicts exist.
The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with recognized ethical guidelines and best practices, including principles of fairness, objectivity, and impartiality. Editorial decisions are made independently and are based solely on the scientific merit, quality, and relevance of the submitted work.
Any suspected breaches of confidentiality, ethical misconduct, or inappropriate behavior during the peer-review process may be investigated by the editorial office and addressed in line with the journal’s ethical policies.
Editorial Independence
The journal is committed to maintaining full editorial independence throughout the peer-review and publication process. Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Factors unrelated to the scientific content of the manuscript, including but not limited to authors’ institutional affiliation, geographic location, nationality, academic rank, or ability to pay publication fees, do not influence the peer-review process or editorial decision-making.
The separation between editorial responsibilities and financial considerations is strictly maintained. Editors and reviewers are not involved in any financial transactions related to publication, and financial factors play no role in manuscript evaluation, acceptance, or rejection.
By upholding editorial independence, the journal ensures a fair, unbiased, and transparent evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts.
Timeline
The journal strives to provide timely and thorough editorial decisions. However, the duration of the peer-review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revision rounds required.
The journal operates under a platinum (diamond) open-access model, with no article processing charges and no publication fees for authors. As part of this model, editorial activities—including manuscript handling, peer-review coordination, and editorial decision-making—are carried out by editors and assistant editors voluntarily, alongside their academic and professional responsibilities.
Similarly, peer reviewers contribute their expertise without financial remuneration, as a professional service to the scientific community. As all participants in the editorial process perform their roles in their available time, review and decision timelines may occasionally be longer than those of commercially funded journals with dedicated full-time editorial staff.
Despite these structural limitations, the editorial team makes every effort to manage submissions efficiently, to communicate clearly with authors, and to advance manuscripts through the review process as promptly as possible. The journal continuously seeks to improve editorial workflows while remaining committed to an open, fee-free publishing model that prioritizes accessibility and scientific integrity.