Reviewers Policies

Peer Review Process

Decisions about publishing submitted manuscripts come from both editorial evaluation and peer review. After submission, each manuscript is initially examined by at least two members of the editorial team to determine whether it should be sent for external review. This stage aims to give authors a quick decision when a manuscript clearly doesn’t meet the criteria for further consideration. 

Editorials and Letters may sometimes be accepted without external review. However, in most cases, manuscripts are either rejected at this preliminary stage or sent for peer review. Papers that do not meet the journal’s essential standards, such as those lacking enough novelty or relevance to the field, may be turned down at this stage to avoid unnecessary delays for authors who may want to submit their work elsewhere. Occasionally, manuscripts may be returned to authors with requests for revisions before editors determine if the work should be reviewed. Authors can generally expect an initial decision within one to two weeks of submission. 

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are assessed by an international panel of experts. Each paper undergoes double-blind peer review by two or more independent reviewers, supervised by the section editor and the Editor-in-Chief. The journal aims to keep authors’ identities anonymous during the review process, but authors themselves must ensure they do not reveal identifying details, such as references to prior publications. If a manuscript has identifying information, the review will be done in a single-blind format, meaning that reviewers remain anonymous but authors do not. 

The journal aims to finish the peer review process within four weeks of the decision to review, though there may be occasional delays. Authors should allow up to six weeks from the submission date before reaching out to the editorial office. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript. 

Role of Reviewers 

Reviewers are crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. As participants in a double-blind process, they must keep their identities confidential. 

A reviewer should decline an invitation if the manuscript is outside their expertise, if they cannot complete the review on time, or if there are any conflicts of interest. All manuscripts must be treated as confidential, and any consultation with others must receive prior editorial approval. Reviewers must not pass manuscripts to colleagues for evaluation. If they cannot review, they should refuse the invitation directly. 

As guardians of academic quality, reviewers are expected to evaluate the originality, rigor, and significance of the submitted work. If they discover that a manuscript is under consideration by another publication, they should inform the editor. While the evaluation criteria may differ based on the work's nature, reviewers are generally asked to consider the following: 

Ø  Compliance with the journal’s structure and author guidelines 

Ø  Clarity of purpose and objectives 

Ø  Coherence and flow of arguments and transitions 

Ø  Quality of the introduction, conclusion, and recommendations 

Ø  Adequacy and accuracy of references 

Ø  Language quality (grammar, spelling, punctuation) 

Ø  Originality and absence of plagiarism 

Ø  Relevance and suitability of the article to the journal’s scope 

Reviewer feedback is vital in the editorial process. Recommendations—whether to accept, revise, or reject—greatly influence the final editorial decision. The journal encourages reviewers to provide detailed, objective, and constructive comments that improve the scholarly quality of the published articles. 

Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers 

Reviewers should treat papers as confidential and keep their contents private. 

Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts if conflicts of interest arise from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any authors, companies, or institutions related to the papers. 

Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief about any significant similarity or overlap between the considered manuscript and any published paper they are aware of. 

Reviewers may point out relevant published work that authors have not cited. 

Reviewers should clearly express their views with supporting arguments in 700 to 1000 words. 

Reviews should be objective and avoid personal criticism of authors. Reviewers’ understanding of the authors must not influence their comments and decisions. 

Editorial responsibilities 

Ø  Compliance with the journal’s structure and author guidelines 

Ø  Editors (Deputy Editors or Editor-in-Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to accept or reject an article. 

Ø  Editors should not change their decision after submitting it, especially after a reject or accept, unless they have a serious reason. 

Ø  Editors should avoid conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members. 

Ø  Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have evidence of misconduct. 

Ø  Editors should act if they suspect misconduct in a paper, whether published or not, and strive to resolve the issue. 

Ø  Editors should only accept papers when they are reasonably confident of their quality and adherence to ethical guidelines. 

Ø  Editors should protect the anonymity of reviewers and should not overturn previous decisions without a valid reason. 

Ø  Editors should base their decisions solely on a paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. 

Ø  Editors should understand the funding sources of research and publish errata or corrections when necessary. They should ensure the quality of papers and maintain the integrity of the academic record. 

Ø  Editors should consider the needs of both authors and readers while enhancing the publication and take responsibility for its content and overall quality. 

Confidentiality 

Confidentiality is vital in the publication process. Editors must keep submitted manuscripts confidential and share information only with those involved in evaluation, review, and publication. They must not disclose details about submitted manuscripts to anyone else or discuss the content publicly before acceptance and publication. Editors commit to protecting the confidentiality of authors and reviewers, including their names and feedback, in accordance with ICMJE policy. They also promise to verify the accuracy of information in their journal articles and uphold high journalistic standards. 

Editors are prohibited from revealing peer review comments without permission from the author and reviewer unless the journal policy requires open peer review. In such instances, permission is granted by submitting the review to the journal. If the reviewer’s identity is meant to be anonymous, it will not be disclosed without their written consent. 

Confidentiality may be broken only in cases of alleged dishonesty or fraud, but editors must first inform the author or reviewer and maintain confidentiality in other matters. 

Editors will not use confidential information for their own gain or allow others to do so. They will take all necessary precautions to prevent misuse of confidential information. If peer reviewers breach confidentiality, editors will address the matter with the involved parties until it is satisfactorily resolved. 

Peer review and timeliness 

Editors also commit to ensuring that reviewer comments are properly evaluated and understood, considering any declared conflicts of interest. 

Articles written by editorial team members will be peer-reviewed independently, and the editor will have no role in the peer review or publication decision for their own article. 

Editors will work hard to ensure fast processing of manuscripts. 

If the journal does not plan to publish a manuscript, editors will do their best to reject it as quickly as possible so authors can submit their work to another journal.