Peer Review Process
1. General Policy
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial screening and a peer-review process to assess their relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, originality, methodological quality, validity of results, scholarly contribution, and compliance with publication ethics.
The journal adopts a double-anonymous peer-review system, in which authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors throughout the review process. The entire editorial process is managed through Open Journal Systems (OJS) to support documentation, transparency, and traceability of editorial decisions.
Each manuscript entering substantive peer review is evaluated by three independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter. Reviewer selection considers subject-matter expertise, research or publication experience, and potential conflicts of interest.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission through OJS, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) assigns the manuscript to a Section Editor according to its subject area. The Section Editor conducts an initial screening that covers:
-
Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.
-
Compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript template.
-
Completeness of the article structure, tables, figures, references, and supporting documents.
-
Language clarity, readability, and formatting consistency.
-
Preliminary screening for potential plagiarism or text similarity using similarity-checking software.
-
Potential publication ethics concerns, including suspected duplicate publication and undisclosed conflicts of interest.
The initial screening is targeted for completion within 3–7 working days. If administrative or formatting deficiencies are identified, the manuscript is returned to the author for correction. Authors are generally given 7–14 calendar days to complete the required corrections, unless the editor specifies otherwise based on the manuscript’s needs.
The Section Editor verifies the corrections before determining whether the manuscript can proceed to peer review. A manuscript may be rejected at the initial stage if it falls outside the journal’s scope, fails to meet basic scholarly requirements, presents serious ethical concerns, or does not satisfy the journal’s minimum requirements.
3. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated by three independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on the relevance of their expertise to the manuscript topic, their relevant academic or professional track record, research or publication experience, and their ability to provide objective scholarly assessments.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting or undertaking an assignment. A reviewer whose conflict of interest could compromise the objectivity of the assessment will not be assigned to the manuscript concerned.
Reviewer assignment and confirmation are targeted for completion within 7–14 calendar days. If a reviewer cannot complete the review, the editor may appoint a replacement to maintain the quality and continuity of the editorial process.
4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:
-
Relevance and scope: the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s focus and scope.
-
Originality and scholarly contribution: the clarity of the research novelty, research gap, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge or professional practice.
-
Theoretical foundation and literature: the adequacy, relevance, currency, and use of literature supporting the research arguments.
-
Methodology: the appropriateness of the research design, data sources, data-collection techniques, analytical methods, and alignment between the methods and research objectives.
-
Validity of results and discussion: consistency among the data, analytical results, interpretations, and conclusions, including the adequacy of evidence supporting the research claims.
-
Presentation quality: article structure, academic language, readability of tables and figures, and consistency of citations and references.
-
Research and publication ethics: compliance with academic integrity principles, including data-source transparency, appropriate attribution, and disclosure of conflicts of interest where relevant.
-
Publishability: an overall assessment of the manuscript’s quality, relevance, and contribution to the journal’s readership.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments through the review form in OJS. They also provide an editorial recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the journal’s final decision.
5. Review Process and Time Limits
The editorial process follows these operational targets:
-
Initial screening by the Section Editor: 3–7 working days.
-
Administrative corrections by the author: 7–14 calendar days.
-
Reviewer assignment and confirmation: 7–14 calendar days.
-
Peer review: 21–30 calendar days from the date reviewers accept their assignments.
-
Major revision by the author: 21–30 calendar days.
-
Minor revision by the author: 7–14 calendar days.
-
Revision evaluation by the Section Editor: 7–14 working days.
-
Additional review, if required: 14–21 calendar days.
-
Final decision by the Editor-in-Chief: 3–7 working days after the evaluation is completed.
These time limits are operational targets. Adjustments may be made depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the need for re-review, and the completeness of the revisions. In the event of delays, the editor may contact the relevant parties, grant a reasonable extension, or appoint a replacement reviewer.
6. Manuscript Revision and Re-evaluation
The Section Editor communicates reviewer comments and recommendations to the author through OJS. Authors must respond systematically to every reviewer comment in a response to reviewers document and identify the changes made to the manuscript.
The Section Editor checks the completeness of the responses and the adequacy of the revisions. If revisions are insufficient or substantive concerns remain unresolved, the manuscript may be returned to the author or sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.
A manuscript may undergo more than one revision round when necessary. If an author fails to submit a revision within the specified deadline without prior notice or an acceptable explanation, the author may be asked to request an extension, or the manuscript may be considered for closure in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy.
7. Similarity Screening and Academic Integrity
The journal uses similarity-checking software to help identify textual overlap with previously published or otherwise available sources. Similarity scores are not used as the sole basis for editorial decisions. Editors assess the percentage and pattern of similarity, identified sources, citation context, and indications of plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.
If suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other ethical violations are identified, the editor conducts further assessment in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy. Depending on the nature and severity of the concern, the manuscript may be returned for clarification, rejected, or handled through the relevant ethics procedures.
8. Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewer reports, author responses, and the Section Editor’s evaluation, a recommendation is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief checks the completeness of the review process and may request clarification or additional review when necessary.
The editorial decision may be one of the following:
-
Accept: the manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly and editorial requirements.
-
Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited corrections before acceptance.
-
Major Revision: the manuscript requires substantive improvements and may undergo further review.
-
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for scholarly quality, relevance, ethics, or publication requirements.
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on scholarly and editorial considerations. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision, but the outcome is not determined solely by a vote or numerical count of reviewer recommendations. Editors must maintain decision-making independence and avoid conflicts of interest.
9. Fast-Track Review
The journal may offer a fast-track review option when available and supported by its editorial capacity. This option is intended only to accelerate administrative handling and manuscript processing; it does not lower the review standards or guarantee acceptance.
Manuscripts submitted through the fast-track option must satisfy all initial screening, peer-review, publication ethics, and editorial decision requirements. Acceptance is not guaranteed under the fast-track review option.
10. Letter of Acceptance (LoA)
A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) may only be issued after the manuscript has received a formal Accept decision from the Editor-in-Chief and the decision has been recorded in OJS. An LoA is not issued while a manuscript is undergoing initial screening, peer review, revision, or awaiting a final decision.
The LoA confirms that the manuscript has been accepted for publication by the journal. It does not replace copyediting, typesetting, final proofreading, or publication preparation.
11. Copyediting and Production
Manuscripts formally accepted for publication proceed to copyediting, which covers grammar, terminology consistency, formatting, citations, references, tables, and figures. The Section Editor coordinates communication with the author to clarify or confirm editorial corrections.
Copyediting and author confirmation are targeted for completion within 7–14 calendar days, while final checking and production preparation are targeted for completion within a further 7–14 calendar days, subject to adjustment when necessary.
Once these stages are complete, the Section Editor submits a production-readiness recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the final manuscript check, including the PDF galley proof, before the article is published in its scheduled journal issue.
The journal publishes two issues per year. Placement in a particular issue depends on the readiness of the editorial and production processes and the publication schedule. The publication frequency does not compromise the independence of peer review or scholarly quality standards.
12. Documentation and Transparency
All editorial stages, including initial screening, reviewer assignment, review reports, author responses, revisions, Section Editor recommendations, Editor-in-Chief decisions, and production activities, are documented in OJS. This documentation supports process traceability, editorial accountability, and consistent implementation of the peer-review policy.
The journal is committed to conducting peer review objectively, fairly, transparently, and with integrity while maintaining manuscript confidentiality and the independence of reviewers and editors.
