Peer Review Policy
Editorial screening, double-blind peer review and decision procedures followed by the Journal.
Initial Editorial Screening
All eligible submissions undergo an initial editorial screening for relevance, originality, formatting and compliance with the Journal’s scope and policies.
Scope and Formatting Review
The editorial team assesses whether a manuscript falls within the Journal’s aims and scope and follows the applicable submission and citation requirements.
Originality Screening
Submissions may be screened for plagiarism, duplicate publication and substantial overlap with previously published or simultaneously submitted work.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected with regard to subject knowledge, independence and the absence of known conflicts of interest.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts selected after editorial screening are ordinarily subjected to double-blind peer review. The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process.
Reviewer Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related editorial communications as confidential and must not use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose circumstances that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the impartial assessment of a manuscript.
Revision Process
Authors may be invited to respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript. A revision request does not guarantee acceptance.
Editorial Decision
Based on the review, a manuscript may be accepted, accepted subject to revisions, returned for major revisions or rejected. The final publication decision rests with the Journal’s editorial team.
Review Timeline
The Journal seeks to communicate decisions within a reasonable period. Timelines may vary depending on subject complexity and reviewer availability.