Peer Review Policy

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publishing. Their expertise ensures that research is accurate, credible, and rigorously evaluated before publication. Editors rely on peer reviewers for their specialized knowledge of the subject matter or methods being assessed. This expertise and accountability for their assessments fosters mutual trust between authors, reviewers, and editors.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure academic integrity and the validity of the work.

Our journal employs a single-blind peer review process. In this model, reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This approach encourages objective evaluation while maintaining some anonymity for reviewers.

Peer Review Process:

  1. Initial Manuscript Screening: Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or designated editors perform an initial assessment to ensure the manuscript meets basic standards of relevance, clarity, and ethics and to verify compliance with the journal's scope.
  2. Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent experts in the field for peer review. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise and the manuscript's relevance to their areas of specialization.
  3. Reviewers' Responsibilities:
    • Objective Evaluation: Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, thorough, and constructive evaluation of the manuscript. They should assess the research's scientific rigor, originality, clarity, and ethics.
    • Confidentiality: All manuscripts and associated materials are treated confidentially. Reviewers must not share any part of the manuscript or its contents with third parties.
    • Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or professional relationships) with the authors or the manuscript's content.
    • Use of AI Tools: Reviewers must refrain from using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to generate reports. If AI is used to assist in the review, its use must be disclosed, and reviewers must understand that AI may produce incomplete or biased output.
  4. Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers are asked to provide feedback on the manuscript's:
    • Originality and contribution to the field.
    • Methodological rigor and soundness of results.
    • Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
    • Compliance with ethical standards in research, especially for human/animal subjects. Reviewers will recommend one of the following actions:
    • Accept as is
    • Minor revisions
    • Major revisions
    • Reject
  5. Editor's Decision: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Editor will make one of the following decisions:
    • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
    • Minor Revisions Required: Authors are asked to make minor changes to the manuscript, typically related to clarity or minor data adjustments.
    • Major Revisions Required: Substantial revisions are requested, with a new round of peer review often necessary after the changes.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the necessary standards and is unsuitable for publication.
  6. Appeals Process: Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected may appeal the decision by providing a written explanation and response to the reviewers' comments. The editorial team will review the appeals, and in some cases, additional external experts may be consulted.

Ethical Considerations: All reviewers are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers must ensure that manuscripts do not contain instances of plagiarism, falsification, or any other unethical practices. Reviewers should immediately inform the editorial team if any ethical concerns are identified.

Reviewer Recognition: Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality of our journal. To acknowledge their contributions, reviewers may choose to sign their reviews, or they can remain anonymous if preferred. Additionally, reviewers will be recognized in a yearly public thank-you note on the journal's website and may receive certification for their review contributions.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the peer review process unless the Editor explicitly gives permission.