Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Overview

Our journal employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and significance of published research. All submissions undergo careful evaluation by expert reviewers in the relevant field.

Review Model

We use a double-blind peer review process:

  • Author anonymity: Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
  • Reviewer anonymity: Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
  • Confidentiality: The review process and all submitted materials are kept strictly confidential

Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors to assess:

  • Suitability for the journal's scope
  • Adherence to ethical standards
  • Compliance with submission guidelines
  • Scientific merit and originality
  • Quality of English language

Desk rejection: Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria may be rejected without external review (typically within 7 days).

Reviewer Selection

For manuscripts that pass editorial screening:

  • At least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise are invited
  • Reviewers are selected based on their publication record and knowledge of the subject area
  • Potential conflicts of interest are carefully evaluated
  • Authors may suggest preferred or non-preferred reviewers (editor's discretion)

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality: Novel contribution to the field
  • Scientific rigor: Appropriate methodology and analysis
  • Significance: Importance and impact of findings
  • Validity: Sound conclusions supported by data
  • Clarity: Clear writing and logical organization
  • Ethical compliance: Adherence to research ethics
  • References: Adequate citation of relevant literature

Review Timeline

  • Initial submission to editorial decision: 7-10 days
  • Peer review period: 3-4 weeks
  • Editor's decision: Within 5 days of receiving reviews
  • Revision submission: Authors typically given 2-4 weeks
  • Re-review (if needed): 2-3 weeks

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, manuscripts receive one of the following decisions:

1. Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor editorial changes. This decision is rare on the first submission.

2. Minor Revisions

The manuscript is potentially acceptable but requires minor changes. Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts typically do not undergo additional peer review.

3. Major Revisions

The manuscript has merit but requires substantial revisions to methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation. Revised manuscripts are typically sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

4. Reject with Resubmission Option

The manuscript has fundamental issues but contains valuable elements. Authors may resubmit after substantial revision, which will be treated as a new submission.

5. Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication. The decision is final and the manuscript cannot be resubmitted.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must:

  • Submit a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer comments
  • Upload a tracked changes version showing all modifications
  • Upload a clean version of the revised manuscript
  • Clearly explain any reviewer suggestions not implemented
  • Submit within the specified timeframe (extensions may be granted upon request)

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe:

  • Reviewers have made factual errors or misunderstood key aspects
  • The review process was unfair or biased
  • New evidence addresses the concerns raised

Appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision. The appeal will be reviewed by an independent editorial board member. Appeal decisions are final.

Post-Acceptance Review

After acceptance, manuscripts undergo:

  • Plagiarism check: Using similarity detection software
  • Copy editing: For grammar, spelling, and formatting
  • Reference verification: Checking citation accuracy
  • Author proofing: Authors review final proofs before publication

Confidentiality and Ethics

  • All submitted materials are treated as confidential documents
  • Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use information for personal benefit
  • Reviewers with conflicts of interest must decline the invitation
  • Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, professional feedback
  • The journal follows COPE guidelines for peer review ethics

Reviewer Recognition

We value the essential contribution of our reviewers:

  • Reviewers receive formal acknowledgment for their service
  • Outstanding reviewers are recognized annually
  • Review records can be exported to platforms like Publons/Web of Science
  • Certificate of review provided upon request

Contact

Questions about the peer review process? Contact the Editorial Office.