All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process designed to ensure academic quality, scientific integrity, and ethical compliance. The journal applies a single-blind peer-review system, in which reviewers remain anonymous to authors, while reviewers are informed of the authors’ identities.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Before a manuscript enters peer review, the assigned Editor conducts a first review to determine whether the submission is suitable. This first review includes:

• General compliance with the journal template (see Author Guidelines)
• Adequate American English language quality
• Preliminary scientific merit and relevance to scope
• Generation of a similarity report using plagiarism-detection software (iThenticate) (see Plagiarism Policy)    

Similarity Evaluation Rules

•  The bibliography is excluded from similarity calculations.
• Text matches shorter than 9 consecutive words are excluded.
• Similarity Rate ≥ 35% → Reject without peer review
• 24% < Similarity Rate < 35% → Technical Revision Required before peer review
• Similarity Rate ≤ 24% → Proceed to Peer Review
• Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical text recycling may be rejected regardless of the numerical similarity rate (see Ethical Principles and Publication Policy).

2. Editorial Assignment

Each manuscript is assigned to an Editor. If necessary, a Section Editor and a Asociative may additionally be appointed to assist in the evaluation and coordination of the review process.

3. Reviewer Invitation and Assignment

To ensure impartiality, diversity, and academic rigor:

• Minimum number of reviewer invitations per manuscript: 4
• Typical invitation range: 4–10 reviewers (nationally and internationally)
• Because not all invited reviewers accept, additional invitations may be issued when necessary.
• Editorial decisions are based on at least 2 detailed and scientifically justified reviewer reports.
• Only constructive, reasoned, and content-based evaluations are considered valid for the editorial decision.

4. Reviewer Selection Criteria (Conflict of Interest Prevention)

Reviewers are selected according to the following default criteria:

• Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as any author.
• Reviewers assigned to the same manuscript must not be from the same institution as each other.
• Reviewers must not have prior co-authorship with any author.
• Reviewers must not be the advisor, supervisor or student of any author.
• Reviewers cannot be serving as an Editor of this journal.
• Reviewers must hold at least a doctoral degree.

5. Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports are assessed for quality, objectivity, and academic contribution. If reviewer opinions conflict, and the reports contain adequate scientific reasoning, the Editor’s academic judgment may be considered as one of the determining factors in the final decision. The following reports are considered invalid for editorial decisions:

• Reports lacking scientific reasoning or substantive contribution
• Requests for unnecessary or forced self-citations
• Acceptance or rejection recommendations without sufficient justification
• Disrespectful, biased, or unprofessional language

6. Editorial Decision Types

After evaluating valid reviewer reports, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept – The manuscript is approved for publication without further scientific revision. Only minor editorial or formatting adjustments may be made during production.
• Minor Revision – Limited corrections or clarifications are required. The revised version is usually checked by the Editor and may not require full re-review.
• Major Revision – Substantial changes are required in methodology, analysis, structure, or discussion. The revised manuscript is mandatorily returned to reviewers for another evaluation round.
• Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to major scientific, ethical, or scope-related concerns. A rejected manuscript may only be reconsidered if thoroughly reworked and submitted as a new submission.

7. Minor Revision Workflow

Authors are expected to submit minor revisions within 15 calendar days. Thereafter, the procedure is as follows:

• The Editor verifies whether reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.
• If each comment of the reviewers have not been considered, Editor ask for upload the edited files, considering all the comments, from the authors.
• If each comment of the reviewers have been adequately addressed, Editor makes a final decision about the manuscript or forwards to reviewers again if is required.
• When a manuscript is sent to reviewers, editorial decisions such as Acceptance or Minor Revision are determined in accordance with the reviewers’ reports. If, following a Minor Revision, the reviewers recommend a Major Revision or Rejection and this recommendation is considered scientifically justified, the review process of the manuscript has been terminated.

8. Major Revision Workflow

Authors are expected to submit major revisions within 15 calendar days. Thereafter, the procedure is as follows:

• The Editor verifies whether reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.
• If each comment of the reviewers have not been considered, Editor ask for upload the edited files, considering all the comments, from the authors.
• If each comment of the reviewers have been considered, Editor forwards to reviewers again.
• When a manuscript is sent to reviewers, editorial decisions such as Acceptance or Minor Revision are determined in accordance with the reviewers’ reports. If, following a Major Revision, the reviewers recommend a Major Revision or Rejection and this recommendation is considered scientifically justified, the review process of the manuscript has been terminated.

9. Impartial Handling of Editorial Submissions

To eliminate any potential conflict of interest and ensure full editorial impartiality:

Until the end of 2024, articles authored or co-authored by the Editors of the journal were limited to a maximum of 1/10 (10%) of the total number of articles published per year; as of 2025, this quota has been reduced to 0 (zero), and manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editors or the Owner/Publisher of the journal are not accepted for publication under any circumstances in order to ensure full editorial impartiality and to eliminate any potential conflict of interest.

10. Review Timelines (General Guidance)

Reviewer invitation response time: 5 days
Reviewer evaluation period: 15 days
Author revision period (Minor or Major): 15 days
Editorial decision after receiving final reports: 10 days
These durations represent standard operational targets and may be adjusted in exceptional cases.

11. Standardization and Ethical Commitment

The journal uses a standard reviewer report template to promote structured and consistent evaluations.
Reviewer anonymity is strictly protected throughout the process.
Publication malpractice, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest are treated with utmost seriousness (see Ethical Principles and Publication Policy)
All communications and manuscripts are expected to comply with American English language standards.

12. Flowchart References

For visual representations of the workflow, please refer to:

Review-Procedure Flowchart

Minor-Revision Flowchart

Major-Revision Flowchart

This policy ensures that the peer-review process remains transparent, numerically explicit, and aligned with international indexing and ethical publishing standards.

Workflow Settings

Additional time for all assigned users when Editor extends the due date: 5 days
Time to take action when a new submission arrives before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time for the assigned Sectetary (if any) to take action in “With Secterary” status before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time for Editor to assign an Editor in “checked” status before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time for the assigned Editor to take action in “With Editor” status before becoming overdue: 20 days
Time for the assigned editors to take action in “Ready for Decision” status before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time for Editor to make a decision before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time for the assigned Editor to prepare the article for publishing after it is accepted before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time for the Statistics Editor, Layout Editor, and Language Editor to complete the task before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time for Layout Editor to complete the task before becoming overdue: 20 days
Time to Author for a resubmission: 10 days
Time to Author for a minor revision: 15 days
Time to Author for a major revision: 15 days
Time for Reviewer to respond to the invitation. 5 days
Time for Reviewer to review the article after accepting the invitation. 15 days