1. Initial Editorial Screening

Submitted manuscripts are first checked for relevance to the journal's focus and scope, basic manuscript requirements, research integrity, and readiness for peer review.

Where necessary, the Editorial Office may ask authors to revise the manuscript before it is sent to external reviewers. Under the regular workflow, authors are normally informed within up to two weeks whether the manuscript can proceed to peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Reviewer selection is determined by the Editorial Board according to subject expertise, availability, independence, and potential conflicts of interest.

3. Reviewer Suggestions

Authors may suggest up to two potential reviewers, including institutional affiliation and email address. Suggested reviewers are recommendations only; the Editorial Board retains full discretion over reviewer selection.

4. Review Period and Revision

For the regular review route, reviewers are normally given up to four weeks per review round. Depending on reviewer comments, authors may be invited to submit a revision together with a point-by-point response.

5. Editorial Decision

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, journal policies, and editorial assessment. Possible outcomes may include revision, acceptance, or rejection.

Acceptance is never determined by payment, author identity, institutional affiliation, or the use of an optional Fast-Track service.

6. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents, provide objective and constructive assessments, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and alert the editor to significant ethical or integrity concerns.