To ensure the highest standards of quality, rigor, and relevance, all submissions will undergo a meticulous and unbiased peer-review process, guided by leading experts in the field. This process helps maintain the integrity and impact of all published work.

The peer-review process is conducted in the following stages:

1. The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by the editor to determine whether it aligns with the journal’s focus and scope, contains any major methodological flaws, or has a high similarity score (checked using Turnitin). Based on this assessment, the manuscript will either be rejected or passed on to the review stage.

2. Manuscripts accepted for review are sent to at least two anonymous reviewers using a Single Blind Review system.

3. The reviewers submit their comments and recommendations to the editor.

4. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and makes a preliminary decision, which is then communicated to the corresponding author. The possible decisions are: accept, revise, or reject.

5. If revision is required, the author submits a revised version. The editor evaluates the changes and determines whether the paper is acceptable, needs further revision, or should be rejected.

6. Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the copyediting and layout editing stages to produce the final camera-ready version for publication.

Review Outcomes

Based on the peer review process, the editor will make one of the following decisions:

• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication and cannot be resubmitted.

• Accept with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes and will undergo another round of review after revision.

• Accept with Minor Revisions: Minor modifications are needed; the editor will verify the changes before publication.

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted in its current form and will be published without further modifications.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

All invited reviewers are expected to:

• Review manuscripts critically and constructively to help authors improve their work.

• Review multiple versions of a manuscript if needed.

• Provide comments and recommendations within the assigned deadline.

• Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable for publication.

• Disclose any potential conflict of interest related to the manuscript or its authors.

• Report any suspected research misconduct to the editor.

• Decline review and suggest alternative reviewers if unable to complete the task.

• Treat the manuscript as confidential.

• Not use the content for personal benefit.

• Avoid direct communication with the author.

• Remain anonymous and not reveal their identity.

• Not pass the manuscript to another reviewer.

• Ensure the manuscript reflects original, high-quality research.

• Inform the editor if the manuscript is under consideration elsewhere.

• Write review reports in English only.

• Optionally, write a commentary related to the reviewed manuscript if appropriate.

Key review criteria include:

• Novelty and originality

• Scientific reliability

• Contribution to the field

• Ethical compliance

• Structural and formatting consistency

• Proper and relevant references

• Grammar, punctuation, and spelling

• Scientific integrity and misconduct awareness