Peer Review Policy

Model. The journal uses double-anonymous peer review: identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process.

Initial screening. All submissions receive an editorial screening for fit with scope, basic methodological soundness, adherence to the template, and language/readability. Manuscripts failing this screening may be desk-rejected.

External review. Submissions that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers assess originality, methodological rigor, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance.

Decisions. The Editor (or handling editor) makes one of the following decisions based on reviewer reports: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

Anonymity & confidentiality. Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript and supplementary files. Reviewers must treat all materials as confidential and must declare any competing interests.

Ethics & integrity. Submissions are screened for similarity using TURNITIN prior to peer review. The journal follows COPE best-practice guidelines.

Post-acceptance. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and layout prior to publication. The journal may make minor editorial adjustments that do not affect the scholarly content.