Article Review Process

1. Duties of Reviewers
1.1 Contribution to Publication: Decisions The peer review process is a crucial stage that directly impacts the quality of academic publications. The review process is conducted based on the double-blind peer review principle. Reviewers and authors cannot communicate directly; all review reports and feedback are submitted through the journal's management system. Editors assess the reviewers' reports and share them with the author(s). The double-blind peer review system ensures objective decision-making and helps authors improve their work.
1.2 Timeliness: Reviewers who receive an invitation to review a manuscript should inform the editor as soon as possible whether they can undertake the review. The review period is a maximum of one (1) month.
1.3 Confidentiality: Manuscripts sent to reviewers for evaluation should be treated as confidential documents. Manuscripts should not be shared with others, and their content should not be discussed. In exceptional cases, reviewers may seek advice from colleagues with the permission of the Chief Editor. The confidentiality rule also applies to those who decline the review invitation.
1.4 Principle of Impartiality: Personal criticism of authors should be avoided in the review process. Reviewers should provide objective, clear, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
1.5 Citation and References: Reviewers should notify authors of any sources that should be cited but have not been referenced. If a manuscript shows similarities to previously published works, reviewers should inform the editors.
1.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should decline to review any manuscript if they have conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or companies involved and should inform the editors accordingly. Additionally, reviewers must not use unpublished materials or information obtained during the review process in their research. Information acquired during the review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. These rules also apply to those who decline to review a manuscript.

Article Review Process Timeline

• Additional time for cases exceeding the process deadline: 5 days
• Maximum time for processing a newly submitted manuscript: 10 days
• Maximum time allocated to the secretary during the secretary step: 7 days
• Maximum time for the editor to take over the manuscript (Control Completed Step): 10 days
• Maximum time for the editor to proceed with the manuscript after taking it over (In Editor Step): 10 days
• Maximum time for processing a manuscript after it is ready for decision (Ready for Decision Step): 7 days
• Maximum time for the editor to make a decision (Decision Pending Step): 7 days
• Maximum time allocated to the editor for the publication process (Publication Process Step): 10 days
• Maximum processing time for the Writing, Language, Statistics Editor, and Final Reader: 7 days
• Maximum processing time for the Layout Editor: 7 days
• Time given to the author when the manuscript is sent back: 15 days
• Time given to the author for minor revisions: 15 days
• Time given to the author for major revisions: 15 days
• Response time for reviewers to accept the invitation to review: 7 days
• Reviewers' evaluation period: 15 days