PEER REVIEW

The Journal adheres to a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the validity, quality, and scientific integrity of published work. All submissions first undergo an editorial assessment to determine their suitability for the Journal’s scope, standards, and ethical requirements. Manuscripts deemed appropriate are typically sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter or methodological expertise to evaluate their scientific merit. The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editorial team.

The Journal uses a double-blind peer-review system, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. Publication decisions are based on the originality, novelty, scientific rigor, clarity, and methodological soundness of the work. Editors have broad discretion in determining whether a submission is appropriate for external review or for publication. Manuscripts may be rejected at the editorial stage without external peer review, accompanied by a general explanation. 

To ensure fairness and transparency, editors do not take part in decisions on manuscripts they have authored, manuscripts submitted by family members, close colleagues, or collaborators, or papers involving products or services in which they hold a financial or professional interest. In such circumstances, the manuscript will be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest and who will oversee the editorial and peer-review process. Editors are expected to disclose any other circumstance that could reasonably compromise their impartiality and to recuse themselves whenever appropriate.

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant subject-matter or methodological expertise and their ability to provide an impartial and constructive assessment of the manuscript. They must uphold the highest standards of confidentiality and integrity throughout the peer-review process and may not contact authors directly without prior authorization from the Journal. Any financial, personal, professional, or institutional conflict of interest that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, impartiality must be disclosed to the Editors immediately upon invitation to review, so that appropriate action can be taken. Where a potential conflict is identified, the Journal may decline the reviewer’s participation or assign an alternative reviewer. The Journal may also replace a reviewer during the review process where necessary to protect the integrity, confidentiality, or impartiality of the peer-review process.

Manuscripts under review are privileged and confidential documents. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from disclosing, sharing, or using any part of an unpublished manuscript for personal or professional benefit. The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in preparing or conducting reviews is not permitted. Reviewers are expected to act with fairness, integrity, and professionalism throughout the review process.