On this page
Peer review is a fundamental component of our journal’s commitment to scholarly integrity and scientific rigour. All submissions undergo a multi-stage evaluation by qualified subject experts to ensure the publication of high-quality research.
Initial Assessment
Once a manuscript is submitted, our Managing Editor conducts a preliminary technical screening to confirm adherence to formatting, ethical, and submission guidelines. Following this, an academic editor—typically the Editor-in-Chief or a designated board member—reviews the manuscript for its relevance, clarity, and compliance with the journal’s aims and scope. At this stage, the academic editor may recommend proceeding to peer review, request preliminary revisions, or reject the submission outright.
Expert Review
Manuscripts that pass the editorial pre-check are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. We follow a single-blind peer review system, where reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors do not know who reviewed their work. The peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, scientific accuracy, methodological soundness, and contribution to the field.
If needed, a second or even third round of review may follow, depending on the complexity of the feedback and the nature of the revisions. The academic editor then makes a final decision on the manuscript based on reviewer reports and the authors’ responses.
Reviewer Criteria and Responsibilities
Our journal selects reviewers based on their academic background, publication record, and subject-matter expertise. Reviewers must:
Have no conflicts of interest with the authors;
Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
Not have co-authored work with the authors within the past three years;
Hold a doctorate or relevant professional degree;
Be active in research with a verifiable ORCID or Scopus profile.
We expect reviewers to provide thorough, constructive, and ethical assessments aligned with the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Confidentiality and Disclosure
All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or discussing the content with others, and they must not attempt to identify the authors in double-blind contexts. Review reports are shared only with editorial staff and, optionally, the authors if open review is selected. Any use of large language models (LLMs) or AI tools in preparing review reports must be disclosed and limited to editorial support only (e.g., grammar or formatting). Uploading confidential manuscript data to AI tools is strictly forbidden.
Review Report Guidelines
Reviewers should evaluate each manuscript holistically and provide feedback in the following format:
A short summary of the manuscript’s aims and contributions;
General comments on the significance, structure, and scientific rigour;
Specific line-by-line or section-based feedback referencing figures, tables, or methods;
Constructive criticism framed professionally and respectfully.
The review should assess the relevance of the literature cited, the transparency and reproducibility of data and methodology, the clarity of graphical content, and the validity of the conclusions drawn. Recommendations for additional citations must be justified and not self-promotional.
Evaluation Categories
Each reviewer must conclude their report with one of the following recommendations:
Accept as Submitted – The manuscript meets all criteria for publication.
Minor Revisions Needed – The manuscript is suitable for publication following minor adjustments.
Major Revisions Required – Substantial changes are needed before reconsideration.
Reject – The manuscript contains critical flaws and is not suitable for publication.
All recommendations must be clearly supported by the content of the report.
Reviewer Recognition
Reviewers may opt to link their review activity to their ORCID iD. Those who wish to do so must have an active account in the submission system and enable ORCID integration. Once linked, review activities can be added manually to their ORCID profile to reflect their contribution to the scientific community.