All submitted manuscripts undergo a peer review process to ensure scientific quality, originality, and suitability for publication. Submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor. Manuscripts that do not meet the Journal’s standards in terms of quality, originality, or relevance may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers.

The Journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and in such a way as to avoid any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are provided with the anonymized manuscript and relevant information necessary to conduct an objective evaluation. They are expected to assess:

• the originality and contribution of the manuscript;

• the methodological soundness and validity of results;

• the clarity, structure, and coherence of the manuscript;

• the relevance and adequacy of references;

• the quality of language and presentation.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide a recommendation to accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject it. Where revisions are required, authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Editors may withhold parts of a review that contain inappropriate content or confidential information.

Only manuscripts that receive positive evaluations are considered for publication. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and the academic merit of the manuscript.

The Journal ensures that the peer review process is conducted fairly, objectively, and in a timely manner, in accordance with COPE guidelines.