Peer Reviweing Policy

General Arbitration Policy The journal supports peer review because it allows independent experts in the same academic field as the authors to evaluate and comment on the research. This process helps improve manuscripts, allows the editor to assess the suitability of the work for publication, and enables expert evaluation of research by independent specialists.

Manuscript Review Process

The journal employs specific guidelines for reviewing manuscripts:

  • Anonymity: The identities of reviewers and authors are kept confidential, ensuring impartiality.

  • Preliminary evaluation: Before full review, the editorial board assesses the manuscript for technical aspects, quality, and ethical considerations, such as plagiarism.

  • Technical review: Ensures the manuscript includes required sections, maintains language clarity, is readable, and follows APA citation guidelines.

  • Quality assessment: Examines the originality and importance of the topic.

  • Ethical screening: Manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection using specialized programs to save time for authors, reviewers, and the journal.

Manuscripts meeting journal standards proceed to formal review. Those failing to meet criteria or deemed less relevant to academic research are rejected before external arbitration. Editors may consult specialists in the subject area before making decisions.

Manuscripts passing the initial evaluation are sent to one or two independent experts for review. Reviewers must:

  • Disclose conflicts of interest if present.

  • Provide a clear recommendation with supporting arguments for publication or rejection.

Editors rely on reviewer input to make decisions, evaluating their arguments and other information. Reviewer acceptance of a manuscript implies commitment to further assessments. If authors fail to implement required modifications, editors may choose not to resubmit the revised manuscript for review.

Editorial decisions are final unless there is a dispute between the author and reviewers. Authors may appeal if they believe incorrect information influenced the decision. Appeals undergo editorial and reviewer scrutiny for a scientific response. The journal does not permit any abusive remarks during peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Selecting qualified reviewers is vital. The journal follows these criteria:

  • Expertise and reputation in the academic field.

  • Ability to provide justified recommendations based on past experience.

  • Avoidance of reviewers with poor response times, negligence, or unclear evaluations.

  • Potential reviewers receive manuscript titles and abstracts before full manuscripts are sent upon their agreement to review.

  • Confidentiality: Communications regarding reviews are strictly private.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Contributing to editorial decisions: Peer review is essential in scientific publishing and helps authors refine their research.

  • Competence and availability: Reviewers should notify the journal if they lack expertise or cannot complete reviews on time.

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must handle manuscripts with strict privacy.

  • Objectivity: Reviews must be supported by clear evidence, avoiding personal criticism.

  • Source verification: Reviewers should identify relevant published works and notify the journal of any overlaps.

  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Reviewers cannot use unpublished content for personal research without explicit author permission.

Evaluation Outcome Report

Peer review aims to provide editors with sufficient information for decision-making and assist authors in improving their manuscripts for publication. If a manuscript is rejected, reviewers must present arguments demonstrating weaknesses to help authors improve their work for submission elsewhere.

Reviewers are not obligated to provide detailed reports for manuscripts failing basic journal standards. They may submit a brief summary outlining rejection reasons.

  • Reviewers may submit private feedback to editors, but the preferred approach is a structured report for authors covering:

    • Originality: Scientific contributions justifying publication.

    • Relevance to previous literature: Authors' understanding of related global research.

    • Methodology: Whether the manuscript employs suitable theories and strategies.

    • Results: Clarity in presentation, analysis, and discussion.

    • Conclusions: Reflection on findings' theoretical, practical, and societal implications.

    • Presentation quality: Language fluency, terminology accuracy, logical structure, and readability.

Final Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Publication without changes

  • Publication with minor revisions

  • Publication with major revisions

  • Rejection, stating reasons clearly

Review Timeline

Reviewers must adhere to deadlines. If extra time is needed, they must notify the journal, which may replace them if necessary.

  • Standard review period: 2-4 weeks. The journal sends email reminders before deadlines.

  • Conflicting recommendations: A third reviewer may be assigned, extending the review period.

  • Post-review revisions: Authors receive 30-60 days for modifications. Second-round reviews determine final acceptance.

Anonymity

Reviewer identities remain undisclosed to ensure objective assessments.

Reviewer Report Editing

While the journal does not typically interfere with reviewer reports sent to authors, it may remove inappropriate language, private details, or unclear comments to improve clarity.

Ethical Considerations

  • Editors may consult external experts on ethical concerns related to manuscript content, data access, or societal impact.

  • Discussions between authors, editors, and reviewers remain confidential.

  • Editorial staff and reviewers must withdraw from reviewing manuscripts where impartiality is compromised.