Peer Review

 

The journal implements a rigorous double-blind peer review process involving at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance or rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief. The editorial workflow is summarized in the diagram below.

Editorial Process Flow

Quick Links

Step 1. Submission by Author

Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s Online Journal System (OJS). All submitted manuscripts must comply with the journal’s focus and scope as well as the author guidelines. The manuscripts should demonstrate scientific merit or novelty relevant to the journal’s aims. Submissions containing plagiarism will be automatically rejected. Authors are encouraged to use plagiarism detection software before submission. The editorial team verifies similarity using Turnitin.

Step 2. Initial Screening by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) evaluates whether the manuscript’s topic aligns with the journal’s focus and scope. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable are rejected. Suitable manuscripts proceed to the next stage of editorial assessment.

Step 3. Manuscript Evaluation and Formatting Check

The EIC examines provisionally accepted manuscripts for completeness according to the author guidelines, adherence to the journal’s format and template, adequacy of references, originality, and language accuracy.

Step 4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that meet all preliminary requirements are assigned to a minimum of two reviewers under a double-blind review process. Manuscripts that do not meet the format or quality standards are returned to the author(s) for revision before review.

Step 5. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers provide constructive, detailed feedback to enhance the scientific quality of the manuscript. Based on reviewers’ comments, the EIC will decide whether the manuscript is:

  • Accepted without revision,
  • Accepted with minor revision,
  • Returned for major revision (followed by re-review), or
  • Rejected.

Step 6. Revision and Final Decision

For manuscripts requiring minor revisions, authors must resubmit the corrected version within the specified deadline. For major revisions, the revised manuscript will be sent back to the same reviewers for re-evaluation, restarting the peer review process. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and overall manuscript quality.