Evaluation Process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a structured evaluation process designed to ensure academic quality, scholarly integrity, fairness, and editorial independence.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
    Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to assess:
    • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
    • Compliance with author guidelines (format, completeness, required statements/files)
    • Basic scholarly quality and suitability for external review
    Manuscripts may be returned to authors at this stage (desk rejection) if they are out of scope, incomplete, or do not meet minimum standards.
  2. Similarity / Plagiarism Screening (Turnitin)
    Manuscripts that pass the initial screening undergo similarity screening using Turnitin. This screening helps identify potential plagiarism, redundant publication, and inappropriate text reuse.

    If substantial overlap or ethical concerns are detected, the editors may request clarification, require correction with proper attribution, or reject the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics and misconduct policies.

  3. Double-Blind Peer Review
    Manuscripts that pass screening proceed to double-blind peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed. Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent reviewers selected by the editors based on subject expertise, scholarly track record, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but reviewer selection remains solely at the editors’ discretion.
  4. Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Responsible Use of Tools
    Reviewers and editors must:
    • Treat manuscripts and all review materials as strictly confidential
    • Declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, professional, institutional, or personal) and decline participation when a conflict exists

    Confidentiality and AI/tools: Reviewers must not upload, paste, or disclose any part of a manuscript (including text, figures, tables, references, or data) to public AI tools or third-party services that may store, reuse, or share content. If any secure, institutionally approved tool is used solely for language assistance, it must not involve sharing identifiable manuscript content. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the substance, judgment, and recommendations in their reports.

  5. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations
    Reviewers provide constructive, evidence-based feedback and recommend one of the following outcomes:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision (Revise and Resubmit)
    • Reject
  6. Editorial Decision and Independence
    The Editor-in-Chief (or an appointed Handling Editor) makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, and the journal’s editorial standards.

    If reviewer reports conflict or additional expertise is required, the journal may invite an additional reviewer or consult an editorial board member.

    Editorial decisions are made independently of non-academic considerations and are not influenced by authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, or other external factors. When an editor has a conflict of interest (e.g., authorship, close collaboration, same institutional affiliation, or a personal relationship with an author), the manuscript is reassigned to another qualified editor to ensure impartial handling.

  7. Revisions and Final Acceptance
    For revision decisions, authors submit:
    • A revised manuscript
    • A point-by-point response to reviewer/editor comments (and a marked/track-changes version if requested)
    A manuscript is accepted once the editors confirm that required revisions have been satisfactorily addressed. Additional rounds of peer review may be conducted when necessary.
  8. Review Criteria
    Manuscripts are assessed using the following criteria:
    • Originality and contribution to the field
    • Clarity of aims, structure, and argumentation
    • Methodological soundness and ethical compliance (where applicable)
    • Quality and rigor of analysis and interpretation
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership
    • Adequacy and transparency of reporting, references, and data (where applicable)
  9. Appeals
    Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reason