In adherence to the standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), this journal is committed to maintaining a transparent, thorough, and fair peer review process. These guidelines define the peer review policies and detail the responsibilities of all participants—reviewers, editors, and authors—to ensure integrity in the evaluation of all manuscripts.

1. Peer Review Model

The journal utilizes a double-blind peer review system:

• Single-blind: Reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but authors do not know the reviewers.
• Double-blind: Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities.
• Open: Both authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identities.

The chosen model helps ensure objectivity, fairness, and transparency, consistent with the journal’s ethical standards.

2. Peer Review Process Stages

1. 1. Initial Manuscript Screening:
      Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to ensure the manuscript meets the journal's scope, ethical guidelines, and quality standards. Manuscripts that do not comply may be returned to authors without undergoing peer review.
   2. Reviewer Assignment:
      Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge, research experience, and absence of any conflicts of interest with the manuscript or its authors.
   3. Review Process and Feedback:
      Reviewers critically assess the manuscript, focusing on its originality, methodology, ethical standards, data accuracy, and overall contribution to the field. Reviewers provide detailed, objective, and constructive feedback, highlighting areas for improvement and offering specific recommendations.
   4. Editorial Decision:
      Based on the feedback from reviewers, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:
      • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with minor or no changes.
      • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small adjustments or clarifications, which the authors must address before acceptance.
      • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are necessary, such as changes to the methodology, data analysis, or structure. After the authors address these issues, the manuscript may undergo another round of review.
      • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's criteria for publication.
   5. Revisions and Re-Evaluation:
      If minor revisions are requested, authors should address the reviewer feedback and resubmit the manuscript. These revisions are typically evaluated by the editorial team without further peer review. If major revisions are requested, authors must make more substantial changes based on the reviewers' comments and resubmit the manuscript. The revised version may be sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers for further evaluation.
   6. Final Decision:
      The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief or senior editor, based on the reviewers' evaluations and the quality of the revisions. Authors are informed of the decision, and accepted manuscripts proceed to publication.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the integrity and quality of the journal. Their key responsibilities include:

• • Providing Unbiased and Constructive Feedback:
    Reviewers must offer thorough and objective feedback aimed at improving the manuscript. Comments should be constructive, professional, and respectful.
  • Maintaining Confidentiality:
    Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share the content of the manuscript or discuss it with anyone outside the editorial team.
  • Adhering to Deadlines:
    Reviewers should submit their assessments within the agreed-upon timeframe to ensure a timely decision-making process.
  • Declaring Conflicts of Interest:
    Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. If a conflict exists, they should decline the review.

4. Editors’ Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for overseeing the peer review process and ensuring it adheres to the highest ethical standards. Their key responsibilities include:

• • Ensuring Fairness and Objectivity:
    Editors must manage the peer review process in a fair and unbiased manner, selecting reviewers based on their expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest.
  • Making Informed Decisions:
    Editors base their decisions on the reviewers’ assessments and the quality of the manuscript, ensuring that all comments are considered fairly.
  • Handling Appeals:
    If authors believe their manuscript has been unfairly treated, they may appeal the decision. Editors will review appeals in a fair and transparent manner, ensuring that the appeal process is clearly documented.
  • Declaring Conflicts of Interest:
    Editors must declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists.

5. Journal’s Responsibilities

The journal itself upholds the following commitments to ensure the peer review process is transparent and ethical:

• • Providing Clear Guidelines:
    The journal will publish clear guidelines on the peer review process on its website, including details on reviewer selection criteria, confidentiality, and timelines.
  • Maintaining Transparency:
    The journal ensures transparency in its operations, with clear communication to authors, reviewers, and editors regarding the peer review process.
  • Regular Training:
    The journal offers regular training and resources to editors and reviewers, focusing on ethical considerations, constructive feedback, and best practices for peer review.

6. Handling Conflicts of Interest and Disputes

• • Conflicts of Interest:
    All parties involved in the peer review process—authors, reviewers, and editors—are required to declare any conflicts of interest. Any conflicts will be managed according to the journal's conflict of interest policy.
  • Appeals Process:
    If authors wish to appeal a decision, they must submit a detailed explanation. The appeal will be reviewed by a separate editorial panel not involved in the original decision, ensuring fairness.
  • Dispute Resolution:
    Any disputes arising from the peer review process will be resolved by senior editorial staff through transparent and impartial discussion.

By following these guidelines, this journal aims to maintain a high standard of peer review, ensuring that all published research is credible, ethical, and valuable to the academic community.