To support the double-blind process, authors must carefully prepare their manuscripts to avoid disclosing any identifying information. Please submit two separate files:

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to assess its relevance to the journal's aims and scope, language quality, adherence to submission guidelines, and completeness of anonymization. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards will be desk-rejected without proceeding to peer review. Authors will be notified within 5 business days.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on expertise matching the manuscript's subject area and are expected to be free of conflicts of interest. Reviewers assess submissions based on:

Reviewers are encouraged to use standardized evaluation tools such as the Publons Reviewer Guidelines or other discipline-specific checklists. Authors are given 7 days to respond to reviewer comments. A second round of review may follow to confirm that revisions have been properly addressed. The overall review period ranges from 4 to 6 weeks.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewer recommendations. Possible decisions include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Accepted manuscripts undergo final proofreading and layout editing. Authors must approve the final galley proof before publication. We strictly follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers must immediately declare and recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest — including personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors, competing research, or membership in the same institution. Editors are held to the same standard.

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of manuscripts for their own research purposes before publication. Breaching confidentiality is considered a serious ethical violation and will be reported to the reviewer's institution.

Reviewers are expected to complete their review within 14 days of accepting the invitation. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they must notify the editorial office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made. Repeated late submissions may result in removal from the reviewer database.

Authors who believe a rejection decision was made in error may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision. The appeal must include a detailed rebuttal addressing each reviewer comment. Appeals based solely on disagreement without substantive justification will not be reconsidered.

Any form of reviewer misconduct — including plagiarizing the reviewed manuscript, providing biased reviews for personal benefit, or revealing manuscript content — will result in immediate removal from the reviewer panel and notification to the relevant institution. Cases will be handled following COPE flowcharts.

Authors submitting a revised manuscript must include a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Changes in the manuscript should be clearly highlighted or tracked. Revisions submitted beyond the stated deadline without prior approval from the editor will be treated as new submissions.