Peer Review Process

EDITORIAL SERVICE TARGETS

Target Operational Timeline

An efficient editorial process supporting monthly publication.

Timeline clarification: The first decision refers to the initial editorial screening outcome, not necessarily the final decision following external peer review. The review-time target covers the initial external review stage, while submission-to-acceptance is an indicative target for manuscripts requiring no substantial additional review. These are operational targets, not guaranteed processing times or historical performance statistics. Editorial assessment and publication decisions are never accelerated at the expense of scholarly quality.

01. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Submissions must comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript preparation requirements, and publication ethics policies. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file intended for anonymous review, while providing accurate author details and affiliations through the submission metadata and designated documents.

02. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript, including:

• Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.
• Originality and potential scholarly contribution.
• Methodological clarity and academic relevance.
• Compliance with manuscript structure and author requirements.
• Similarity screening and potential ethical concerns.
• Availability of appropriate disciplinary expertise for independent assessment.

Manuscripts may be returned for technical corrections or declined without external review when they do not meet the journal's initial requirements. The journal aims to communicate the initial screening outcome within seven calendar days under normal conditions.

03. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts passing editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant research expertise. The journal targets three independent reviewers for each manuscript undergoing external assessment. Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when their independence, availability, or subject expertise is insufficient. If an invited reviewer declines or fails to respond, the editor may invite a replacement. Reviewer selection is based on expertise and impartiality rather than institutional affiliation alone.

04. Independent Peer Review

Reviewers critically assess the manuscript and provide constructive, evidence-based comments addressing:

• Originality and significance of the scholarly contribution.
• Clarity of research questions and objectives.
• Appropriateness and transparency of the methodology.
• Quality of analysis, interpretation, and argumentation.
• Validity of conclusions and their relationship to the evidence.
• Relevance and adequacy of scholarly references.
• Ethical compliance and responsible research reporting.

Reviewers are expected to complete the initial assessment within 14 calendar days after accepting the invitation, where feasible. The overall target for the initial review stage is 21 days, subject to reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

05. Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes a reasoned editorial decision. Possible outcomes include:

• Minor Revision: Limited but necessary improvements are required.
• Major Revision: Substantial modifications, clarification, or additional analysis are required.
• Re-review: A revised manuscript requires further independent assessment.
• Acceptance: The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements.
• Rejection: The manuscript does not meet publication standards or cannot be brought to the required standard through appropriate revision.

Reviewers provide recommendations; they do not make the final publication decision. The editor evaluates the substance of the reports and may seek additional expert advice where evaluations differ significantly. Manuscripts are not automatically accepted on the basis of a numerical vote.

06. Author Revision and Re-review

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. The journal normally requests minor revisions within seven calendar days and major revisions within 14 calendar days. Extensions may be granted where justified. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional experts if further substantive assessment is required.

07. Final Acceptance and Editorial Verification

A manuscript may be accepted only after the editor has determined that essential reviewer concerns have been appropriately addressed and the submission meets the journal's academic, ethical, and technical requirements. The editor also checks author information, declarations, citations, supporting documentation, and other relevant publication metadata. Acceptance dates must reflect actual editorial decisions.

08. Copyediting, Production, and Proofing

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and production. The production team checks language consistency, references, formatting, layout, author information, DOI preparation, and publication metadata. Authors may be invited to review the final proof for factual or production errors. Substantive post-acceptance changes require editorial approval.

09. Publication and Post-publication Responsibilities

Articles are published in the appropriate monthly issue after completion of editorial and production requirements. Publication does not end the journal's responsibility for research integrity. Concerns identified after publication may result in investigation, correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.