Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

What is Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system to ensure an objective, fair, and independent evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. This approach minimizes potential bias and safeguards the integrity, credibility, and scholarly quality of published research.

How the Double-Blind Review System Works

Manuscript Submission
Authors submit manuscripts via the journal’s online submission system. Submissions must be anonymized, with all identifying information removed from the main document.

Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial office evaluates the manuscript for:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality and academic merit
  • Ethical compliance
  • Adherence to submission guidelines
  • Basic methodological soundness

Manuscripts may be rejected, returned for technical corrections, or advanced to peer review.

Reviewer Assignment
Eligible manuscripts are assigned to independent experts with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewer selection is based on academic qualifications, research specialization, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Peer Review Evaluation
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Scientific rigor and originality
  • Conceptual clarity
  • Methodological validity
  • Significance of findings
  • Structure and coherence
  • Adequacy of references

Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer reports, the editor may decide:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Revision and Re-evaluation
Authors respond to reviewer comments and submit revised manuscripts. Further review may be conducted where necessary.

Final Acceptance and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, production, DOI assignment, and publication.

Core Elements of Double-Blind Peer Review

1. Anonymity

  • Author identities are hidden from reviewers
  • Reviewer identities are hidden from authors
  • Ensures impartial and unbiased evaluation

2. Independent Expert Assessment

  • Manuscripts reviewed by qualified subject specialists
  • Typically evaluated by at least two reviewers
  • Focus on academic quality and contribution

3. Editorial Oversight

  • Editors coordinate the review process
  • Decisions based on reviewer feedback and academic merit
  • Maintain fairness, transparency, and confidentiality

4. Ethical Safeguards

  • Conflict of interest disclosure
  • Confidential handling of manuscripts
  • Plagiarism and similarity screening

Responsibilities Within the Review Process

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

  • Conducting initial manuscript screening
  • Selecting qualified and unbiased reviewers
  • Ensuring confidentiality and anonymity
  • Making decisions based on scholarly merit
  • Communicating decisions clearly and professionally
  • Addressing ethical concerns promptly

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality
  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations
  • Assess academic quality and methodological validity
  • Identify ethical issues or potential misconduct
  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Submit reviews within agreed timelines

Author Responsibilities

Authors must:

  • Submit original, ethically compliant work
  • Ensure manuscript anonymization
  • Respond to reviewer comments respectfully
  • Revise manuscripts diligently
  • Disclose conflicts of interest
  • Adhere to ethical publishing standards

Review Procedure Flowchart

Manuscript Submission
Editorial Screening
Reviewer Assignment
Peer Review
Editorial Decision
Revision (if required)
Final Acceptance & Publication