Peer Review Process

Reviewers’ Responsibilities:

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review system, ensuring that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Typically, three experts will review each submission—two external reviewers and one journal editor.

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review aids the editor in making editorial decisions and, through communication with the author, can also assist in improving the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to offer constructive feedback to help the author elevate the quality and standards of the paper.

  1. Promptness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess the manuscript or know they cannot review it promptly should inform the editor and excuse themselves from the process.

  1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts under review as confidential. They should not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone unless authorized by the editor.

  1. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be objective and free from personal criticism. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions, supported by reasoned arguments.

  1. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should point out any relevant published works not cited by the authors. Any claims of previously reported observations, derivations, or arguments should be properly referenced. Additionally, reviewers must alert the editor to any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published works they are aware of.

  1. Reviewer Misconduct

The journal takes allegations of reviewer misconduct seriously. This includes breaches of confidentiality, failure to disclose conflicts of interest (both financial and non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, and delaying reviews for competitive advantage. Such issues will be thoroughly investigated.