Publication process overview

View the publication process workflow and flowchart

Initial editorial assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial office to assess:

• Relevance to the journal's scope
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Basic methodological and scientific soundness

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external peer review.

Double-blind peer review

All manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer review process, in which:

• The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.
• Manuscripts are evaluated objectively on academic merit, originality and relevance.
• Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Independent reviewers are individuals who are not part of the journal's editorial decision-making for that manuscript and who have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the work.

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise
• Academic and publication record
• Prior peer review experience

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. If they have one, they must decline the review.

Role of Editorial Board members

Editorial Board members may contribute to the peer review process under limited circumstances, such as when suitable external reviewers are unavailable or decline invitations.

• External peer review remains the primary and required review mechanism for all primary research articles.
• Editorial Board members do not act as the sole reviewers for primary research articles.
• Any Editorial Board member who reviews a manuscript is excluded from the editorial decision-making process for that manuscript.

Review process

Reviewers are expected to provide:

• Constructive and detailed feedback
• A recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision or reject)

Authors must address reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response.

Editorial decision

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate/Handling Editors, based on:

• Reviewer reports
• Scientific quality and originality
• Relevance to the journal

In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, additional external reviewers may be consulted.

Ethical standards and confidentiality

All participants in the peer review process are expected to adhere to high ethical standards:

• Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal advantage.
• Ethical concerns (for example, plagiarism, duplication or data fabrication) are handled in accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Revisions and final acceptance

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation. Final acceptance is granted only when the manuscript meets the journal's standards for scientific quality, clarity and ethical compliance.

Peer reviewer selection and review process

Principles for selecting reviewers

The journal selects reviewers to ensure fair, objective and high-quality evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are chosen based on:

1. Subject expertise: Demonstrated knowledge in the manuscript's field
2. Academic and research credentials: Relevant qualifications and research experience
3. Publication record: Contributions to reputable journals in the same or related disciplines
4. Peer review experience: Prior experience in manuscript evaluation
5. Objectivity: Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or subject matter
6. Timeliness: Ability to provide constructive feedback within a reasonable timeframe

The journal aims to ensure diversity in reviewer selection to promote balanced and inclusive evaluation.

Recruitment of reviewers

Reviewers are identified through multiple channels, including:

• Recommendations from the editorial board or associate editors
• Academic databases and peer review platforms
• Voluntary applications from qualified researchers

Interested candidates may apply by submitting their CV along with relevant academic profiles (for example, ORCID, Scopus or Google Scholar).

All reviewer selections are subject to editorial oversight and conflict-of-interest checks.

Reviewer selection process

1. Identification

   Potential reviewers are identified based on expertise and relevance to the manuscript.

2. Invitation

   Formal invitations are sent with manuscript details and review guidelines.

3. Acceptance

   Reviewers confirm availability and declare any conflicts of interest.

4. Assignment

   Manuscripts are assigned upon acceptance.

5. Review

   Reviewers provide structured and constructive feedback.

6. Submission of reports

   Review reports include detailed comments and recommendations.

7. Editorial evaluation

   Editors assess reviewer reports to reach a decision.

The journal prioritises the use of independent external reviewers for all primary research manuscripts.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

• Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts.
• Do not use unpublished material for personal advantage.
• Provide objective, unbiased and constructive feedback.
• Declare any conflicts of interest.
• Report any suspected ethical concerns to the editor.

The journal follows ethical guidelines outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Editorial oversight and decision-making

Editorial decisions are based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief or designated editors make final decisions.

In cases of conflicting recommendations, additional independent reviewers may be consulted.

Appeals process

• Appeals must be submitted to the editorial office with supporting justification.
• The appeal is reviewed by the editorial team and, where necessary, additional experts.
• A final decision is communicated with a clear rationale.

Transparency and integrity

The journal is committed to maintaining transparency in its peer review and editorial processes. Policies are regularly reviewed and updated to ensure fairness, objectivity and adherence to international publishing standards.

Reviewer guidance and development

1. Reviewer guidance: Reviewers are provided with guidance materials outlining expectations for ethical, objective and constructive peer review.
2. Training and resources: Reviewers are encouraged to engage with available training resources and professional development opportunities in peer review and publication ethics.
3. Editorial engagement: The journal periodically engages with reviewers and editorial board members to discuss peer review practices and improve the overall quality and consistency of the review process.

Refined peer reviewer training framework

We are dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of double-blind peer review. To ensure the integrity and quality of this process, we adopt a comprehensive approach:

1. Reviewer training manual: All reviewers are required to complete our peer review training manual. We also strongly recommend participation in the Certified Peer Review Course offered by Elsevier.
2. Semi-annual general meetings: Biannual general meetings are convened for the editorial office and peer reviewers. These meetings serve as forums to discuss the journal's progress, revisit the peer review process and explore upcoming innovations in the field.

Conference and special issue submissions

Conference submissions policy

Papers presented at conferences may be submitted to the journal, but all submissions undergo the same double-blind peer review process as regular manuscripts. Acceptance is based solely on the outcome of peer review and editorial evaluation.

Special issues

Manuscripts submitted to special issues undergo the same peer review process as regular submissions. Guest Editors manage the review process in collaboration with the editorial office. All submissions are evaluated by independent reviewers, and the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board to ensure editorial independence.