Peer Review Policy

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor first assesses fit with the journal's scope, adherence to author guidelines, originality, ethical compliance, and basic methodological quality. A manuscript may be returned for correction or declined before external review.

Manuscripts proceeding to review are normally assessed by a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Editors consider expertise, independence, potential conflicts of interest, and the ability to provide an objective assessment.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could affect impartiality. Anyone with a material conflict must decline or be recused. Reviewer suggestions from authors may be considered, but reviewer selection remains an editorial decision.

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share or use unpublished information for personal advantage.

The journal aims to complete the initial peer-review process within approximately 6–10 weeks, although timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and revision requirements. This is an aim rather than a guaranteed decision or publication time.

Authors receiving a revision decision should respond to each editorial and reviewer comment and identify changes made. Substantially revised manuscripts may be returned to the original or additional reviewers.

Possible outcomes include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, reject and resubmit, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision, but the Editor-in-Chief or responsible editor makes the final editorial decision based on the evidence and journal policies.

Authors may appeal a rejection by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days and providing a focused scholarly response explaining the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals are assessed independently of commercial considerations, and the final appeal decision rests with the journal.