Reviewing Procedure

The purpose of the review process is to carefully select manuscripts for publication and to offer specific recommendations for their improvement. Reviewing aims to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript’s content, ensure it meets the journal’s requirements, and involve a thorough analysis of the material under consideration.

Steps of the Review Track Process:

1. Article Submission: Author(s) submit their manuscript through the system and receive an automatic notification confirming receipt.
2. Preliminary Review (within ten working days): The editorial team assesses the manuscript for compliance with the journal's aims, scope, and manuscript requirements.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review (up to 2-4 months): The manuscript is sent to at least two qualified reviewers for evaluation.
4. Author Revisions (up to 1 month): If reviewers request changes, author(s) must either make the revisions or provide reasonable refutations. When submitting a revised manuscript, the author(s) should include a file that contains responses to all reviewers’ comments, explaining the changes made to the manuscript.
5. Final Decision: After revisions, the manuscript is re-evaluated, and a final decision is made regarding its acceptance or rejection.

Review Process

Upon receipt of the manuscript, authors will be notified through the electronic platform with a registration number and date of receipt provided. Each manuscript is assigned a unique registration number to ensure author anonymity during the review process.

The editorial team will conduct the preliminary review of the manuscript within ten working days after submission to ensure its alignment with the journal’s scope and requirements. Editors have the discretion to reject the manuscript without peer review if it is deemed irrelevant to the journal’s scope or does not meet the required quality standards. 

Manuscripts that align with the journal's scope and requirements undergo review by at least two independent scholars or experts in the relevant research field. These reviewers are not affiliated with the editorial team or the authors' institutions. They evaluate the manuscript's theoretical framework, methodology, practical value, and scientific significance while ensuring compliance with publication ethics guidelines. Reviewers also provide revision recommendations. The editorial team reserves the right to consult additional reviewers as needed. The final decision regarding publication is based on the reviewers' assessments.

The review process follows the principle of double-blind peer review, where neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other. The reviewers are reminded that the manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and should not be disclosed. They are prohibited from discussing or citing the content of the manuscripts before publication.  

The reviewer should provide a well-reasoned statement if they suspect plagiarism or any other form of improper borrowing in the manuscript. This statement should be accompanied by an appropriate reference. If the reviewer has concerns about plagiarism, authorship, or data falsification, they are required to bring the matter to the attention of the editorial team and request a collective evaluation of the manuscript in question.

Reviewer Instructions

Step 1: Please register on the journal’s website. When registering, select “Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal” and indicate your areas of reviewing interest.

Step 2: An editor will review your information. If you are a suitable match, you will be contacted at your registered email (please check your spam folder as well) to invite you for peer review. You will have the option to accept or decline the invitation by the specified response date, which is typically within 4-5 days.

Step 3:  On your reviewer dashboard, you will find the manuscript and the reviewer’s evaluation form (available here), which serves as a reference. Adhering to its specific structure is not mandatory. Your review will be considered complete once you receive a confirmation letter.

Expectations for Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in helping fellow authors to improve their work, meet international standards, and make their voices heard. A thorough review enhances the quality of submissions and increases the chances of successful publication. A few thoughtful comments can make a significant impact.

The reviewers are expected to prepare their review within the assigned time and provide a conclusion regarding the potential publication of the manuscript. In some instances, the review period can be extended to ensure a thorough and objective assessment of the manuscript.  

The reviewers are expected to submit their reviews on time, adhering to ethical and professional standards, in order to support the regular publication schedule of the journal.

If the reviewer behaves unethically towards authors, consistently provides low-quality reviews, or violates the terms for providing reviews, their relationship with the journal will be terminated.

The reviewers should assess whether they are qualified to review the materials provided based on their expertise in the author's research area.

If the reviewer's personal or professional relationships conflict with the research results or if they have any other interests that could influence their opinion, they must return the manuscript to the editorial team and disclose the conflict of interest.

A manuscript sent to the authors for revision must be returned in a corrected form. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a letter from the authors describing the corrections made and containing responses to all reviewer comments.

The editorial team reserves the right to change the publication order. The acceptance for publication does not imply publication in the next issue of the journal.

The editorial team reserves the right to make editorial changes to the text that do not distort the meaning of the manuscript. All editorial changes will be sent to the author(s) for confirmation. 

All communication between the editorial team, the author, and the reviewer is conducted through the electronic platform (OJS), and in exceptional cases, via email. The editorial team adheres to editorial ethics and does not disclose the process of working on a manuscript in the publishing house without the author’s consent. This includes refraining from discussing with anyone the merits or demerits of the work, comments, or corrections.

 

Last updated 2025-06-02