The articles submitted for publication in our journal are evaluated through a double-blind peer review system. In this process, authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The peer review process involves the following steps:

1. Preliminary Review:
Submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. At this stage, the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, compliance with writing guidelines, and adherence to ethical standards are assessed.

2. Reviewer Assignment:
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are sent to at least two reviewers for evaluation, selected based on their expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, scientific contribution, methodology, and its value to the existing literature.

3. Reviewer Recommendations:
Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations for the manuscript:
- Accept: The manuscript can be published without any revisions.
- Minor/Major Revision: The manuscript requires minor or major revisions before it can be accepted for publication.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

4. Evaluation Results:
Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. Authors may be requested to revise their work according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Revised manuscripts may undergo a re-evaluation process.

5. Final Decision and Publication:
If the reviewers' feedback is positive, the Editor-in-Chief grants final approval for publication. The entire review process is conducted transparently, impartially, and fairly.

The dedicated contributions of reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the academic standards of our journal and enriching the scientific community. Reviewers are expected to strictly adhere to ethical guidelines and confidentiality throughout the evaluation process.

For more detailed information and guidance on the peer review process, please refer to the "Writing Guidelines and Resources" section on our journal's website.