Reviewers policies

Peer Review Process
Decisions regarding the publication of submitted manuscripts are made through a combination of editorial evaluation and peer review. Upon 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. The primary aim of this stage is to provide authors with a rapid decision when a manuscript clearly does not qualify for further consideration.

Editorials and Letters may occasionally be accepted without undergoing external review. However, in most cases, manuscripts are either declined at this preliminary stage or forwarded for peer review. Papers that fail to meet the journal’s fundamental standards—for instance, those lacking sufficient novelty or with limited relevance to the field—may be rejected at this point in order to prevent unnecessary delays for authors who may wish to submit their work elsewhere. In some cases, manuscripts may be returned to authors with requests for revisions before editors decide whether the work should be reviewed. Authors can generally expect an initial decision within one to two weeks of submission.

Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are evaluated by members of an international panel of experts. Each paper is subject to double-blind peer review by two or more independent reviewers, under the supervision of the section editor and the Editor-in-Chief. While the journal makes every effort to ensure that authors’ identities remain anonymous during the review process, authors themselves bear responsibility for concealing identifying details (e.g., in references to prior publications). If a manuscript contains information that reveals author identity, the review will be conducted in a single-blind format, meaning that reviewers remain anonymous but authors do not.

The journal strives to complete the peer review process within four weeks of the decision to review, although occasional delays may occur. Authors are advised to allow up to six weeks from the date of submission before contacting the editorial office. The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority over the final decision on acceptance or rejection.

Role of Reviewers
Reviewers play a central role in ensuring the quality and integrity of the journal, and as participants in a double-blind process, they are strictly required to keep their identities confidential.

A reviewer should immediately decline an invitation if the manuscript is outside their area of expertise, if they are unable to complete the review in a timely manner, or if they have any conflicts of interest. All manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential; consultation with others may only occur with prior editorial approval. Reviewers must not transfer manuscripts to colleagues for evaluation—if they are unable to review, they should decline the invitation directly.

As guardians of academic quality, reviewers are expected to assess the originality, rigor, and significance of submitted work. If they become aware that a manuscript is under consideration by another publication, they should notify the editor. While the criteria for evaluation may vary depending on the nature of the work, reviewers are generally asked to consider the following:

• Compliance with the journal’s structure and author guidelines
• Clarity of purpose and objectives
• Coherence and flow of arguments and transitions
• Quality of the introduction, conclusion, and recommendations
• Adequacy and accuracy of references
• Language quality (grammar, spelling, punctuation)
• Originality and absence of plagiarism
• Relevance and suitability of the article to the journal’s scope

Reviewer feedback plays a decisive role in the editorial process. Their recommendations—whether to accept, revise, or reject—carry significant weight in shaping the final editorial decision. The journal therefore urges reviewers to provide detailed, objective, and constructive comments that contribute to enhancing the scholarly quality of published articles.

Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers
Reviewers ought to treat papers as confidential information and keep their contents confidential.

Reviewers ought to decline to review manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewers ought to bring to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Reviewers ought to express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.

Reviews ought to be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. Self-knowledge of the author(s) must not affect their comments and decision.

Editorial responsibilities

• Compliance with the journal’s structure and author guidelines
• Editors (Deputy Editors or Editor-in-Chief) bear complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
• Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.
• Editors ought to avoid any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
• Editors ought not to reject papers based on suspicions; they ought to have proof of misconduct.
• Editors should take action if they suspect any misconduct in a paper, whether it has been published or not, and make every effort to resolve the issue.
• Editors should only accept a paper when they are reasonably sure of its quality and adherence to ethical guidelines.
• Editors should maintain the anonymity of reviewers and refrain from overturning previous editor's decisions without a valid reason.
• Editors should base their decisions solely on the paper's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication's scope.
• Editors should have a clear understanding of the research's funding sources and publish errata pages or make corrections when necessary. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
• Editors should consider the needs of both authors and readers when improving the publication and take responsibility for the contents and overall quality of the publication.

Confidentiality
Confidentiality is essential in the publication process, and editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, sharing information only with those involved in the evaluation, review, and publication processes. They must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone else or discuss the content publicly before acceptance and publication. Editors commit to safeguarding the confidentiality of authors and peer-reviewers, including their names and feedback, in line with the ICMJE policy. They also pledge to verify the accuracy of the information in their journal articles and adhere to the highest journalistic standards.

Editors are prohibited from revealing peer review comments without the author and reviewer's permission, except in cases where the journal's policy mandates open peer review. In such cases, 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 to the author or anyone else without the reviewer's written consent.

Confidentiality may only be breached if there is an allegation of dishonesty or fraud, but editors must inform the author or reviewer beforehand and maintain confidentiality otherwise.

Editors will not use confidential information for their own benefit or allow others to do so. They will take all necessary precautions to prevent the inappropriate use of confidential information. In cases of confidentiality breaches by peer-reviewers, editors will contact the parties involved and resolve the matter until it is satisfactorily resolved.

Peer review and timeliness
Editors also commit to ensuring that reviewer comments are properly assessed and interpreted, taking into account any conflicts of interest declared by the reviewer.

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

Editors will make every effort to ensure the prompt processing of manuscripts.

If the journal has no intention of publishing a manuscript, Editors will make every effort to reject the manuscript as soon as possible, allowing authors to submit their work to a different journal.