Peer-Review Process

After passing the initial screening, the editor will assign the manuscript to at least two independent experts for peer review. This journal follows a double-blind peer-review system, where the authors' identities remain anonymous to the reviewers. This ensures the reviewers’ integrity when evaluating the submitted articles. The editor will invite reviewers who are experts in the field, including those recommended by the Editor-in-Chief. Invited reviewers may come from the Editorial Board or other journal reviewers.

To maintain objectivity, reviewers with conflicts of interest are prohibited from reviewing the manuscript. The following situations are considered conflicts of interest and must be avoided:

1. A reviewer must not have co-authored a publication with any of the authors in the past three years.
2. A reviewer must not work or collaborate with the institution affiliated with the author(s).
3. A reviewer must not be a current or former doctoral advisor of the author, nor vice versa.
4. A reviewer must not receive professional or personal benefits from the review outcome.
5. A reviewer must not have a personal relationship with the author, such as family ties or close friendships.
6. A reviewer must not have a financial interest, whether directly or indirectly, related to the manuscript being reviewed.
7. A reviewer must not have a history of academic or professional conflicts with any of the authors that could affect their objectivity.
8. A reviewer must not have been a co-investigator or involved in the same research project as any of the authors in the past five years.
9. A reviewer must not have a vested interest in the publication of the manuscript’s findings, especially if the results could benefit or harm the reviewer’s ongoing research.
10. A reviewer must not have been involved in the writing, editing, or direct consultation of the manuscript before its submission for peer review.

The peer-review process takes a maximum of five (5) weeks.