Peer Review Policy
- Peer Review Model
All manuscripts submitted are evaluated via a peer review process. Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. - Reviewer Selection and Number
Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected to avoid conflicts of interest. - Timeframe
Reviewers are expected to complete their review within 2-3 weeks. Authors are usually given 1-2 weeks to submit revisions as needed. - Review Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts on:- Originality and contribution to the field
- Conceptual strength of the paper
- Rigor and appropriateness of methodology
- Clarity of presentation (structure, language)
- Relevance to the aims & scope of the journal
- Applicability to real world problems
- Relevance and clarity of figures, graphs and tables
- Adequacy and correctness in citation/references
- Ethical and academic integrity
- Decision Outcomes
Possible decisions include: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Revisions are evaluated in subsequent rounds as required. - Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document and not discuss it without Editor permission. Conflicts (financial, institutional, personal) must be disclosed; if significant, reviewer should recuse themselves. - Revision and Resubmission
Authors will receive reviewers’ comments and may be asked to revise their manuscripts accordingly. Revised manuscripts undergo further review as necessary. - Ethical Considerations
Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism; authors must ensure originality and proper citation. All research involving human/animal subjects must meet ethical guidelines. - Editorial Oversight
The Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editors oversee the review process, make final decisions, and ensure integrity and fairness in peer review.
