Peer Review policies 

Peer review policy

The practice of peer review aims to ensure that only good science is published. As an objective method of ensuring excellence in scholarly publishing, it has been endorsed by all reputable scholarly journals. Our judges play a vital role in maintaining the journal's high standards, which is why all manuscripts received are reviewed according to the procedure outlined below. (For procedures on special cases, see the note at the end of this document.)

Preliminary evaluation of the manuscript

Before peer review, all received research papers are subjected to a preliminary examination by the journal's editorial board to ensure the extent to which the researcher(s) adhere to the given guidelines and the ethics of scientific publishing. In the event that the research is accepted in principle, it is presented to at least two arbitrators with specialization in the field of research, in order to express their opinions on the originality of the research, its scientific value, the extent of the researcher's commitment to the accepted methodology, and the accuracy of the experimental results obtained. The validity of the research and its ability to be published in the journal is determined based on the observations and recommendations included in the reports of the arbitrators. The editorial board approves the recommendations of the arbitrators and then notifies the researcher(s) of the final status of the research paper, which can be:

Accepted for publication with minor changes.

It is not accepted for publication unless after substantial modifications.

. Not publishable due to lack of basic scientific conditions.

One of the chief editors first evaluates all submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scholarly defects, are poor in grammar or English, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are usually passed on to at least two expert judges for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this point are usually notified within two weeks of receiving them.

type of peer review

The journal uses 'double-blind' review, in which the judges remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and after the review process, while the identity of the author(s) is similarly unknown to the reviewers.

The initially accepted research paper is presented to at least two external arbitrators with experience in the topics covered by the research. Where the journal follows a confidentiality policy of arbitration, where the arbitrators are selected in complete secrecy, and they are not shown the name of the researcher(s) or his data. The arbitrators are required to express their opinions on the research in writing according to specific elements and criteria.

How is the referee chosen?

Whenever possible, judges are matched against the paper according to their experience. Because our reviewer database is continually updated, we welcome suggestions of referees from the author(s), although these non-binding recommendations are not necessarily used.

Referee reports

The judges are asked to rate whether the manuscript:

Original in thought and method (including data)

Methodologically sound

Findings that are clearly presented and support conclusions

Correctly and comprehensively refer to relevant previous work

Follows appropriate ethical guidelines, particularly with regard to plagiarism

It clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees are encouraged to suggest language and style corrections to the manuscript. In the final round, the processing editor will check for grammatical and stylistic correctness issues, and may suggest or apply corrections at this point. In rare cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.

Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the editorial board decides whether the paper should be accepted as is, revised, or rejected. In the case of revisions, a final decision will be made by the Commission regarding publication after re-submission and consideration of the extent to which the researcher(s) responded to the recommendations and amendments proposed by the arbitrators.

Upon approval of the publication of the research, the researcher (researchers) is required to make all the amendments and recommendations stipulated in the reports of the arbitrators, and the researcher (researchers) undertakes to make the required amendments while documenting how to revise the research paper to address all comments and justify what has not been modified, then the revised version is sent to the journal within Deadline set by the editorial board. Then the revised research paper is presented upon its arrival to the same arbitrators who evaluated the first version to ensure the extent to which the researcher(s) responded to the proposed recommendations and amendments. In this case, the arbitrators may request more amendments. In general, no more than two rounds of Substantive Reviews are allowed.

How long does the review process take?

The time required for the review process depends on the response of the referees. For a journal, the usual time for the first round of the review process is about 6 weeks, with a maximum of three months. If the referees' reports contradict each other or the report is unnecessarily delayed, another expert opinion may be requested. In the rare cases when it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, while the sole referee's report has fully satisfied his handling editor, a decision to accept, reject, or request an author's review can be made, at the discretion of the processing editor, on the basis of the referee's report just one. The processing editor's decision will be sent to the author along with the referees' recommendations, usually including the latter's verbatim comments. As a general rule, revised manuscripts are sent to the initial referees for examination; These may then require further review.

final report

The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be communicated to the author along with the recommendations made by the referees, including (if applicable) the verbatim comments of the latter.

In the letter from the editorial board to the researcher(s) to notice