Peer Review Process

1. Submission: Authors must submit their manuscripts to the journal via the Online Journal System (OJS).

2. Initial Screening: All submitted manuscripts must align with the journal's focus and scope and adhere strictly to the author guidelines. Submissions must demonstrate scholarly merit or novelty relevant to the specified fields. The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism; therefore, authors are strongly encouraged to conduct a similarity check using plagiarism detection software prior to submission. The Editorial Team will independently verify the similarity index of each manuscript using Turnitin.

3. Editorial Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) evaluates the suitability of the topic for publication. Manuscripts deemed appropriate are assigned to an editor for further processing, while those outside the scope or of insufficient quality will be rejected.

4. Technical Review: The Editor-in-Chief examines the completeness of the provisional manuscript based on the author guidelines, adherence to the journal template, adequacy of references, originality, and linguistic precision.

5. Double-Blind Review: Manuscripts that fulfill the journal's formatting and technical requirements are forwarded to at least two anonymous peer reviewers/consultant editors through a double-blind review process. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be returned to the author for revision. Reviewers provide substantive academic feedback to enhance the manuscript's content.

6. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief determines whether a manuscript is:

   • Accepted for publication without revision;

   • Returned to the author for minor revisions;

   • Returned to the author for major revisions; or

   • Rejected.

7. Finalization: In the case of minor revisions, authors are required to submit the final version of the manuscript incorporating the necessary changes. For major revisions, the revised manuscript will be resubmitted to the peer reviewers for re-evaluation. In such instances, the peer review process may effectively restart from the initial stage.