Peer Review Policy

Scientific Peer-Review Policy

1. Type of Review:
The journal employs a Double-Blind Review system, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.

2. Review Procedures:

  • Manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial board.

  • An initial check is conducted using AI tools to detect methodological errors or plagiarism before peer review.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the research field, avoiding any conflicts of interest (e.g., direct academic relationships with the author).

  • Initially accepted manuscripts are sent to two specialized reviewers.

  • Review decisions are based on reviewers’ reports; a third report may be requested in case of conflicting evaluations.

3. Evaluation Criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research

  • Clarity of the problem statement and objectives

  • Theoretical framework and methodology

  • Analysis, discussion, and results

  • Documentation, language, and scientific presentation

4. Review Timeline:

  • Initial response: within 10 days

  • Full peer review: within 30–45 days from the date of referral

5. Possible Review Outcomes:

  • Accept as is

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Accept after major revisions

  • Reject

6. Criteria for Direct Rejection:

  • Weak methodology or academic plagiarism

  • Topic outside the scope of the journal

  • Exceeding the approved similarity index

7. Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Maintain confidentiality and objectivity

  • Provide constructive and well-supported feedback

  • Adhere to review deadlines

8. Peer-Review Ethics:

  • Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and must not use manuscript content prior to publication.

  • Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that prevents objective evaluation.

  • The journal reserves the right to replace reviewers who delay the process or fail to meet academic standards.