Peer Review Process

Only manuscripts that pass the first evaluation of their form and topical scope are sent for review. The initial examination is nicely calibrated to ensure that it does not go longer than needed.

The review procedure can take up to four weeks in regular conditions and up to two months in severe circumstances. It takes an average of 90 days from the time a manuscript is submitted to the time it is published.

Procedure for Reviewing

Each manuscript is evaluated on the following criteria:

• The topic was chosen because of the originality of its contribution to the field of scholarly publishing and the quality of its theory and methodology.
• Its ability to communicate with readers
• Its ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).

So, the submission and peer review process for manuscripts are broken into the following steps:

• The manuscript is submitted by the author.
• The manuscript is assigned to Reviewers by the Editor.
• The manuscript is reviewed by the reviewers.
• The Editor incorporates a decision that will be forwarded to the author.

Note: The peer-review process for publications submitted to this journal is double-blind.

Peer review

A peer-review process is used to evaluate the papers that have been submitted. The objective of peer review is to aid the editor in making editorial judgments and assist the author in enhancing the article through editorial discussions with the author.

A manuscript is subjected to peer review, which is done in a double-blind manner. Double-blind peer review means that reviewers are not aware of the authors' identities, and authors are not aware of reviewers' identities. At least two reviewers are involved. The average time allotted for reviews is four weeks. Note that this can be changed during the editing process.

Reviewers are chosen at the editors' initiative. The reviewers must be knowledgeable in the manuscript's topic area; they must not be affiliated with the authors' university and must not have recently published with any of the authors.

There must be no conflicts of interest between reviewers, the authors, or the research funding sources. If any such conflicts arise, the reviewers must notify the Editor as soon as possible.

Any referee who feels unqualified to evaluate the research submitted in a manuscript or understands that timely review is impossible should immediately tell the Editor.

Reviews must be carried out with objectivity. It is not appropriate to criticise the author personally. Reviewers should explain their opinions clearly and provide evidence to back them up.

Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as private papers.

Manuscripts are submitted to the Editorial Office via an online method. To confirm receipt of the manuscript, send an acknowledgement email to the author. Manuscripts are first checked by the journal manager.   Then a Section Editor to oversee the entire review process and return the manuscript with a suggestion or judgment. The paper is examined to see if it adheres to the Journal's scope and formal criteria. If it is wrong or inappropriate, the author should be notified, and the manuscript should be immediately rejected. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements for publication in the Journal are rejected. The author will receive a notification email stating the reason for rejection. The paper is sent out for review if it meets the Journal's goals and scope and the formal requirements of the Instructions to Authors. Depending on the nature of the work, the Chief Editor may accept it for publication immediately.

Check that the manuscript was written and styled according to the Journal style, including an abstract (if applicable), keywords, a correct reference system, and the correct blinding method. If something is missing, request that the author complete it before sending the manuscript out for review.

When the manuscript has been submitted for peer review, the reviewer evaluates the work before sending the Chief Editor a review comment. Depending on the discipline, the review period can be from 2 to 6 weeks (more time is usually given to papers in the humanities and social sciences)

Based on the comments of the reviewers, the Chief Editor decides to:

• Accept the manuscript as is, with no further changes.
• Accept after some changes.
• Request that the writers resubmit their work.
• Reject

The author will receive an acceptance email, and the finished work will be sent to production. Authors are occasionally asked to edit their manuscripts in response to reviewer suggestions and submit the revised version to the Chief Editor. Depending on the discipline and the type of additional evidence, information, or argument necessary, the review period can last 2 to 8 weeks. The writers are asked to make significant changes to their submissions and resubmit them for a new review. The author receives a rejection letter, and the manuscript is preserved. The decision may be communicated to the reviewers.

Following review, the manuscript is sent to the Copy Editor, who will modify the article's reference system and layout to match the journal's style and layout. The manuscript will be delivered to the Layout editor once the Copy Editor has completed his or her work.

The Layout Editor is in charge of turning the original manuscript into an article, including figures and tables, activating required links, and formatting the text in multiple forms, including PDF and HTML in our case. The manuscript will be delivered to the Proof Editor once the Layout Editor has completed his or her work.

The proof-editor certifies that the text has passed all stages and is ready to be published.

Each of the paper's reviewers acts independently and is unaware of each other's identities. If the two reviewers' decisions (accept/reject) differ, the Editor may appoint further reviewers.

The Editorial team will ensure that the reviews are subjected to a suitable level of quality control. To ensure that the reviews are objective and of a high academic standard, special attention will be given to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by the authors. Additional reviewers will be assigned if there is any uncertainty about the objectivity or quality of the reviews.

Peer reviewers should make the following recommendations:

• Only agree to review submissions for which they have the essential topic expertise and can provide an accurate assessment on time.
• Respect the confidentiality of peer review by not disclosing any details about a manuscript or its review other than those provided by the journal during or after the peer-review process.
• Not to misuse information collected through the peer-review process to benefit themselves or any other person or group or to harm or discredit others.
• Declare all potential conflicts of interest, and get help from the journal if you are unsure if something qualifies as a relevant interest.
• Not to let the origins of a manuscript, the writers' nationality, religious or political convictions, gender or other traits, or commercial motives affect their reviews.
• Keep their reviews neutral and constructive, avoid being angry or provocative, and make libellous or insulting personal remarks.
• Recognize that peer review is mostly a mutual effort and commit to doing their fair share of reviewing on time. 
• Recognize that peer review is mostly a mutual effort and commit to doing their fair share of reviewing on time. 
• Recognize that impersonating another person throughout the review process is a significant violation.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers should first check for any potential conflicts of interest and contact the journal manager as soon as possible. The journal manager will inform the Editor in Chief if needed. 

Each article is sent to two separate reviewers for a double-blind review (reviewers do not know who is the author of the work; the author does not know who the reviewers of his work). We insist on anonymity because we feel it will help produce more independent, critical, and better examination papers.

The paper will be reviewed by each reviewer for 2-6 weeks. If you cannot meet deadlines, please advise the Editor in Chief as soon as possible. The reviewer has no rights to the paper's content, the other, or the data from the work that is being reviewed for any reason.

Reviewers have a responsibility to be concerned about ethical issues. Please contact the Journal Manager immediately if the work is plagiarized or if identical content has been found in another journal.

All the comments of the reviewers will be stored confidentially.  Please read the Reviewers instruction page to know the step by step review processing.

Make a suggestion.

After you have completed reading the paper and evaluated its quality, you will need to recommend to the editor whether or not it should be published. The following options are available to you as a next step:

• Accept it without additional revision if the text is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Accept after review – if the text is ready for publishing after minor changes.
• Request that the author(s) resubmit — the paper requires significant revisions, and the document must be resubmitted.
• Reject - If the manuscript is not suitable for publishing in this journal.

For the revised papers

When authors make changes to their article in response to reviewer feedback, they are asked to submit a list of modifications and any reviewer comments.

If allowed, the revised version is returned to the original reviewer, who is then requested to confirm that the adjustments were completed satisfactorily.

What if you are unable to complete a review?

If an assigned reviewer cannot complete a review of the work for any reason, he or she should tell the editorial office as soon as possible. If you cannot submit your report on a paper within the agreed-upon time, please notify the journal manager immediately so that the refereeing process can proceed as planned.