Peer Review Process

All scientific materials submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal will be subjected to a rigorous double-anonymized peer preview process to maintain the integrity and quality of the publications. The Editorial Board initially conducts a preliminary evaluation of the article to ensure compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines. Manuscript that meets the requirements are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for an in-depth assessment of their scope, originality, target audience and scientific merits. Upon collegial review and approval, the manuscript is assigned to two or more reviewers for detailed evaluation, ensuring both author and reviewer anonymity throughout the process. The complete workflow is illustrated in the following figure.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject any scientific manuscript without giving substantiation or justification, if it is thematically inappropriate, lacks quality, presents results accurately, or for any other reason related to its scientific content.

All communication between the author and the reviewer is facilitated through the Editorial Board. After the author addresses the reviewer’s remarks, the scientific paper is submitted for final approval.

The Editorial Board ensures that the reviewer and the author have no personal, professional, or close affiliations with authors of the manuscript being reviewed. Additionally, the reviewer must not have any supervisory or reporting relationships, nor close personal connections.

Throughout the review process and until the preparation of the final review, the content and conclusions of the review remain confidential and are not disclosed to any third parties. Only the Editor-in-Chief of the journal is authorized to access this type of information. Upon the compilation and acceptance of the complete reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will communicate the review outcomes and relevant comments including positive feedback, to all individuals competent to make decisions related to the reviewing process. All individuals participating in the review procedure are obliged to adhere to the principle of confidentiality as regard to confidential information, to which they have been given access.

In the event of any disputes or conflicting remarks from the reviewers, the editors will make a decision or invite additional reviewers to provide further evaluations of the article before reaching a decision. The Editor will give due consideration to the opinions of all reviewers, and once reviews have been accepted, their conclusions will not be disregarded. Recommendations received from the reviewers concerning specific revision to the reviewed manuscript will be carefully considered by the editors and communicated to the author of the paper. Nonetheless, the Editor in Chief holds the sole responsibility for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts.