Every article submitted to this journal undergoes a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of published work. The journal is committed to a fair, transparent, and unbiased review process for all submissions.

Review Method

All submissions are peer-reviewed by at least two independent reviewers using a double-blind (double anonymous) review method, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the process.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the subject matter of the submitted article. Editors ensure that assigned reviewers have no conflict of interest with the author(s) or the content of the manuscript.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, relevance to the journal's scope, methodology, clarity of argument and presentation, use of references, and contribution to the field.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are required to keep the content of the manuscript and any related communications confidential and are not permitted to use information from the manuscript for personal advantage.

Review Timeline

The average time from submission to publication is approximately 2 months, including initial screening, double-blind peer review, author revision, and production. The actual time may be shorter or longer depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the time authors need to revise. Accepted articles are published in the nearest issue (March or September).

Decision Process

Reviewers' comments and recommendations are sent to the corresponding author for necessary revisions and responses. The suggested decision is then evaluated in an editorial board meeting. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision and communicates it to the corresponding author. The possible decisions are: accepted, minor revision, major revision, or rejected.

Author's Right to Respond

Authors have the right to respond to reviewers' comments and, where they disagree with a decision, may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial board for reconsideration.