Editorial Policy

All manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process.

Stages

  • Initial Screening (Editor-in-Chief / Managing Editor).
  • Relevance to scope, quality, and formatting.
  • External Peer Review
  • At least two reviewers per manuscript.
  • Double-blind to ensure fairness.

Editorial Decision

  • Based on reviewers’ reports.

Possible Review Outcomes

  • Accept (no revision required)
  • Minor Revision (editorial corrections, small clarifications)
  • Major Revision (substantial changes in theory, methodology, or analysis required)
  • Revise and Resubmit (requires resubmission and re-review)
  • Reject

Decision-Making in Case of Conflicting Reviews

When reviewer reports differ:

  • Both reviewers recommend “accept” or “minor revision” → Manuscript accepted with minor corrections.
  • One reviewer recommends “minor revision,” the other “major revision” → Editor-in-Chief decides, usually requiring a major revision to ensure higher quality.
  • One reviewer recommends “reject,” the other “accept” → A third reviewer may be appointed, or the editorial board discusses before the final decision.
  • Both reviewers recommend “reject” → Manuscript is rejected.
  • The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority, but decisions are informed by Associate Editors and, in cases of conflict, may involve consultation with the editorial board.