All submitted articles undergo an initial completeness check before being assigned to a subject editor for evaluation. After this stage, manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

The final decision on the manuscript is made by the editor, who carefully considers the reviewers’ comments but is not bound to follow their recommendations. If significant concerns are raised by either a reviewer or the editor, the manuscript may be rejected. Authors are provided with the editorial decision along with reviewer feedback.

Reviewer selection is a critical part of the publication process. Several factors are considered, including the reviewer’s expertise, academic reputation, recommendations, potential conflicts of interest, and past review performance. Preference is given to reviewers who demonstrate timely responses, detailed analysis, logical evaluation, and a professional approach.

The journal follows a strict double-blind peer review system, ensuring complete anonymity between authors and reviewers. This process is designed to maintain fairness, objectivity, and unbiased evaluation throughout the review process.

Credits

This peer review policy and procedure is adapted from guidelines provided by:

• Elsevier
• National Institutes of Health (NIH)