Manuscripts submitted to the journal are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editors. Submissions that do not pass this preliminary evaluation are rejected. Reasons for rejection at this stage may include being outside the journal’s scope, failure to comply with publication ethics or submission guidelines, insufficient academic quality, an excessive volume of submissions preventing timely evaluation, or multiple submissions addressing the same topic.

 

Manuscripts that pass the initial reviewing are assigned to an Editor for a more detailed assessment. At this stage, manuscripts may be rejected if they fall outside the journal’s scope, fail to adhere to the required template or writing guidelines, raise ethical concerns, or are deemed insufficiently developed to be sent for peer review.

 

Manuscripts that successfully pass the detailed review are sent to two expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewer selection is carried out in consultation with the Editors and the Editorial Board. If reviewer reports are contradictory or inconclusive, a third reviewer may be appointed. Manuscripts receiving two negative reports are rejected.

 

If revisions are requested, the revised manuscript is returned to the same reviewers for further evaluation. Manuscripts deemed unacceptable at this stage are rejected.

 

Manuscripts that successfully underdone the peer review process are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief. Following language editing, reference checks, and final technical revisions, the manuscripts are submitted to the Editorial Board for a final decision. While peer review reports and editorial recommendations are taken into consideration, the Editorial Board conducts a comprehensive evaluation, and their decision is final.