1. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the field. Reviewers are selected by the Associate Editors and Editor-in-Chief.

2. Review criteria include relevance, originality, scientific rigor, methodological accuracy, statistical validity, readability, and language quality.

3. The editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

4. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

5. Rejected manuscripts will not be re-evaluated.

6. Manuscript acceptance depends on compliance with ethical and legal standards regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

7. The same research may not be published in more than one journal or in multiple formats.

1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is original and not previously published or under review elsewhere.

2. All authors must have made significant contributions to the research and writing, as defined in the “Authors’ Contributions” section.

3. Authors are required to participate in the peer-review process and respond to reviewers’ comments in a timely and scholarly manner.

4. Authors must ensure that all data are accurate, authentic, and reproducible.

5. Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or image manipulation is strictly prohibited.

6. Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest or financial relationships that may influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

7. All sources and funding relevant to the research must be acknowledged.

8. Authors are responsible for correcting errors or retracting papers if significant issues are identified after publication.

9. Authors must not withdraw their manuscripts after submission or during the review process without the consent of the editorial board.

10. The corresponding author acts as the primary contact and is responsible for ensuring compliance with publication ethics.

1. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and should not share, copy, or discuss their contents with others.

2. Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and constructive, avoiding personal criticism.

3. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., competitive, collaborative, or financial relationships).

4. Reviewers should identify any uncited relevant literature or similarity with other works known to them.

5. If serious ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism or duplicate submission) arise, reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief immediately.

6. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe and provide clear, reasoned feedback.

1. Editors have full authority to accept or reject manuscripts based on scientific merit and journal scope.

2. Editorial decisions are made independently of personal, institutional, or financial interests.

3. Editors ensure that all published content meets international ethical standards (COPE, ICMJE, WAME).

4. Editors must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewers’ identities (in double-blind review).

5. Editors must publish errata, corrections, or retractions when necessary.

6. Editors are responsible for monitoring potential research misconduct and following COPE flowcharts for resolution.

7. Editors should base their decisions on the importance, originality, clarity, and contribution of the work.

8. Editors must not reverse previous editorial decisions without clear justification.

9. Editors must avoid and declare any conflicts of interest with authors, reviewers, or institutions.

10. The editorial board ensures transparency, fairness, and integrity throughout the publication process.

1. Editors, associate editors, and members of the editorial board are allowed to submit their own manuscripts to the journal. However, they cannot access or participate in any stage of the editorial or peer-review process related to their own submissions. For such manuscripts, all editorial privileges and system permissions of the author-editor are automatically restricted, and the editorial process is handled independently by another qualified editor or guest editor to ensure transparency and impartiality.

2. All parties involved—authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers—must adhere to the ethical standards set by COPE.

3. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarized, fabricated, or manipulated data will be rejected or retracted, and the authors’ institutions may be informed.

4. Authors may not make major modifications to their manuscripts after acceptance without the editorial board’s approval.

5. All corrections, retractions, or clarifications will be published transparently and promptly.

6. Complaints, appeals, or ethical concerns will be handled according to COPE procedures.

7. The journal strongly supports open science, research transparency, and data sharing in accordance with FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).

1. Authors must disclose any use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT, language models, image or data generation software) in the Methods or Acknowledgments section.

2. AI tools cannot be listed as authors and must not replace human scholarly judgment or interpretation.

3. The use of AI is acceptable only for technical assistance, such as improving language, checking grammar, or formatting references, provided it does not affect the integrity or originality of the research.

4. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy and validity of any content generated or assisted by AI.

5. Editors and reviewers may use AI-assisted tools only for technical screening (e.g., plagiarism detection, language check) but not for decision-making.

6. Undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI in manuscript preparation or peer review will be treated as a breach of publication ethics.