Editorial Policy

Peer Review Process

Every submission undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team. The manuscript is first screened for scope, quality, and plagiarism to ensure the originality of the work.

Manuscripts that meet the journal’s guidelines and basic quality standards are then sent for peer review. The editorial team assigns two to three reviewers, including both internal and external experts, to evaluate the manuscript.

The journal follows a single-blind peer review process, in which the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and its abstract until publication. They must not disclose their identity directly or indirectly, including through comments or file metadata.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, professional, and constructive feedback. All comments should focus on improving the quality, clarity, and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Personal criticism, derogatory language, or inappropriate remarks are strictly prohibited.

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editorial Board makes the final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers’ comments.

If major revisions are recommended, the manuscript will be reconsidered for publication only after the authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewers’ comments.

Conflict of Interest (COI)

To maintain integrity and objectivity in the peer-review process, reviewers must decline a review assignment if a potential conflict of interest exists.

Primary Conditions for Declining a Review

Reviewers should not evaluate a submission under the following circumstances:

Direct Relationships
The reviewer has a personal, professional, or financial relationship with any of the authors.

Recent Collaboration
The reviewer has co-authored a paper or collaborated on a research project with any of the authors within the past three to five years.

Institutional Conflicts
The reviewer is currently affiliated with the same department or institution as one of the authors.

Competitive Interests
The reviewer is working on a similar project that could benefit from delaying the author’s publication or gaining confidential information from the manuscript.

Actions Upon Disclosure of a Conflict

If a conflict of interest is identified, the journal will take appropriate action, including:

  • Assigning a different reviewer or editor

  • Requesting clarification or additional disclosure from authors

  • Evaluating whether the conflict compromises the integrity of the research

Editorial Conflict of Interest

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts if they have personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest with the authors that could influence editorial decisions.

Author Disclosure Requirements

Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including:

  • Funding sources

  • Financial relationships (grants, consulting fees, stock ownership, patents)

  • Personal or professional relationships that may influence the research

  • Institutional or organizational support

A Conflict of Interest Statement must be included in every submission.

If no conflicts exist, authors must include the following statement:

“The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest may result in rejection of the manuscript. If undisclosed conflicts are discovered after publication, the journal may issue a correction, retraction, or notify the author’s institution.