pre-reviewed by the editors in terms of the aims and scope, and the
“Publication Rules” section of the journal, are sent to at least two
reviewers for a double blind-peer review process. The double
blind peer-review process necessitates concealing the information of the
authors from the reviewers and the other way round. The review results
are secret and kept for a period of five years. The manuscripts declined
in the review process are neither published nor returned to the
author(s). The journal refuses to have any legal or administrative
responsibility as to this abovementioned procedure. The manuscripts
requiring revisions, on the other hand, are sent back to their authors
for further changes. It is obligatory that the authors take the demands
and the advices of both the reviewers and the editors. However, they are
free to submit their objections against the issues they do not agree
upon and the decisions of the reviewers on condition that they submit
their reasonable grounds. In such cases a third-party reviewer is
appealed. Also, a third-party reviewer is appealed for cases where the
decisions of two reviewers are mutually exclusive. It is the
responsibility of the authors to make their required revisions before
their deadlines for re-submission. The editors are authorized to make
minor revisions in accordance with the indexing criteria except for
those which require substantial changes relevant to the scientific
The Evaluation Process of the articles submitted to the journal is as follows:
1- The submitted articles are evaluated by the editor and / or members of the editorial board in terms of purpose, scope, method and writing principles. Two referees are appointed by journal editors to evaluate the paper just after the pre-check phase.
2- Accepted papers which are appropriate to the principals of publication and writing rules, are sent to two judges, recognized by their work and research area, without specifying the author's name.
3- In general, there is a time for the referee to accept the refereeing duty within a period of 15 days. The referee who accepts the duty will be given 30 days to evaluate the paper. Besides this general case, uploading the paper to the system would expedite the process of evaluating.
4- When two referees report that the paper is “Not Appropriate for Publishing”, the article is not published in the journal.
5- If one of the referees has a positive opinion about the publication of the while the other referee has a negative opinion, the article will be sent to the third referee; The publication’s sequel depends on the third referee’s report.
6- Whether the papers are published or not, they are non-returnable. The authors are required to consider the criticism and recommendations of the referees regarding the article they submit if they are asked to correct it.
author is responsible for delivering the corrected text within the
specified time. The revised text may be reviewed again by the referees
in case of need. Neither referees’ nor authors’ identities are shared
with each other (Blind Review). Referee reports are archived to be kept.