The peer review and editorial evaluation process is crucial for maintaining the high standards of published research. Submitted manuscripts undergo thorough peer review to ensure the quality and validity of the research presented. Published findings should be up-to-date, reliable, and accompanied by a balanced and objective discussion.

Acceptance is based on the originality, significance, and impact of the new information provided. Authors will receive a decision on their peer-reviewed submissions within an average of 6 weeks from the submission date.

The peer review process includes the following steps:

1. Submission: Manuscripts are submitted through the online submission system, where a unique manuscript number is assigned upon receipt.
2. Initial Screening: The manuscript is assessed using a submission checklist to verify completeness and adherence to submission guidelines, including checks for duplicate submissions and plagiarism. Manuscripts that fail to meet the submission criteria may be returned to the authors for corrections or rejected for ethical issues.
3. Editorial Assessment: Following the initial screening, the manuscript is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief for its novelty, scientific importance, and relevance to the journal’s audience.
4. Rejection Criteria: Manuscripts that are of inadequate quality, misaligned with the journal’s scope, poorly written, unreadable, with inappropriate language, insufficient creativity, or presenting ethical concerns will be rejected without further review.
5. Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to at least two peer reviewers for detailed evaluation.
6. Review Process: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within a specified timeframe (typically 2 weeks). Their feedback is then forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who will decide whether to accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject it. Authors will be informed of the editorial decision.
7. Revisions: Manuscripts returned to authors for minor or major revisions must be resubmitted within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers to ensure that authors have adequately addressed their comments. The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision based on this re-evaluation.
8. Repeat Review: The review process may be repeated (one or more times) if further revisions are needed.
9. Review Type: The peer review process is single-blind, meaning reviewers know the identities of the authors, but authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
10. Confidentiality: All manuscripts are treated as confidential. Reviewer comments are not published, and the identities of reviewers remain anonymous.