Review Guidelines

The peer-review process is a cornerstone of academic quality and integrity. Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following principles to ensure a fair, objective, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

1. Review Model

• The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process.
• Reviewer identities and author identities are kept confidential throughout the review process.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.
• Provide constructive feedback to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
• Assess originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution to the field.
• Avoid personal criticism and maintain a respectful tone.

3. Confidentiality

• Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished content for personal advantage.

4. Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment.
• If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review assignment.

5. Ethical Considerations

• Reviewers should report any concerns regarding plagiarism, ethical misconduct, data irregularities, or redundant publication to the editorial office.
• Ethical concerns are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

6. Review Timeliness

• Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within 1–3 weeks.
• If a delay is anticipated, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.

7. Recommendation and Decision Support

Reviewers should provide clear recommendations, such as:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Final publication decisions rest with the editorial team.

8. Acknowledgement of Contribution

Reviewer contributions are recognized as essential to maintaining the journal’s academic standards and credibility.