1. Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an editorial screening process and a peer-review process to ensure their quality, originality, scientific contribution, and relevance to the journal's scope. The journal employs a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain concealed from each other throughout the review process.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the editorial team to assess its alignment with the journal's scope, adherence to author guidelines, quality of academic writing, completeness, and compliance with publication ethics.

The editorial team also checks the manuscript for similarities to previously published work using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for technical corrections or rejected without external review.

3. Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of ​​the manuscript.

1. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
2. Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
3. Originality and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.
4. Clarity of research objectives and research questions.
5. Appropriateness of the research methodology.
6. Accuracy and adequacy of data analysis and interpretation.
7. Quality of the discussion and conclusions.
8. Use of relevant and up-to-date references.
9. Adherence to publication ethics and academic standards.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist the editors in making an informed editorial decision.

4. Review Duration

The journal aims to complete the initial editorial screening within 7–14 working days. The peer-review process is generally expected to take 2–4 weeks from the time a manuscript is sent to the reviewers. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revisions required.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, the editorial decision may be one of the following:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revisions.

Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be accepted.

Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major revisions and may be sent back for another round of peer review.

Reject: The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

The final decision rests with the editor or the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers provide recommendations but do not make the final publication decision.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations within the timeframe specified by the editor.

Authors must submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If an author disagrees with a comment, a clear academic justification must be provided.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, if necessary.

7. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts and review reports must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for personal or professional gain.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline an assignment if their objectivity could be compromised. Editors must also avoid handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.

8. Publication Ethics

This journal is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. Any suspected instances of plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication, data falsification, or other forms of publication misconduct will be addressed in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy and applicable ethical guidelines.

9. Appeals

Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, providing clear academic justifications and supporting evidence. Whenever possible, the appeal will be evaluated independently of the initial decision. The journal reserves the right to uphold or revise the original decision based on the merits of the appeal.

10. Final Publication

Manuscripts accepted for publication will undergo copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and preparation for final publication. Acceptance is based on the academic quality of the manuscript and its adherence to the journal’s editorial standards, rather than on the payment of publication fees.