Review Guideline

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to this journal undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of the published work. The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.

Steps in the Peer Review Process:

  1. Initial Screening: The editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript to ensure it fits the scope of the journal and meets the basic quality standards.

  2. Reviewer Assignment: Suitable reviewers with relevant expertise are selected to evaluate the manuscript.

  3. Review Process: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on criteria such as originality, methodology, clarity, significance, and ethical standards. They provide detailed comments and a recommendation (accept, revise, or reject).

  4. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes a decision and communicates it to the authors.

  5. Revision and Resubmission: If revisions are required, authors are invited to address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit their revised manuscript.

  6. Final Decision: The revised manuscript may undergo further review before a final decision is made.

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback and to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Confidentiality must be maintained throughout the process.

Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. If the research reported in the manuscript is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Personal criticism is likely to lead an author to ignore useful comments, making your review less useful to your field. Criticisms should be objective, not merely differences of opinion, and intended to help the author improve his or her paper.