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.

The handling editor uploads the similarity-screening report from Turnitin or another appropriate similarity-checking tool to the submission’s internal editorial records in OJS. The report is linked to the manuscript version assessed and accompanied by an editorial note documenting the assessment and any required follow-up. Similarity percentages are not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism or making editorial decisions. These records are retained for internal editorial purposes and are not published as article supplementary files. Further details are provided in the Screening for Plagiarism section of the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.

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

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for editorial decisions and may delegate decision-making authority to qualified handling editors through documented assignments.
Decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, research integrity, reviewer reports where applicable, authors’ responses, and journal policies. Reviewers provide recommendations; the responsible editor makes the editorial decision. Possible outcomes include revision, acceptance, or rejection.
Research and review articles must complete the journal’s required peer-review process before acceptance. Manuscripts may be rejected during initial editorial screening when they do not meet the journal’s scope, quality, or ethical requirements.
Editors with a conflict of interest must withdraw from handling and deciding on the manuscript. Such manuscripts, including those authored by the Editor-in-Chief or other editorial team members, must be assigned to another qualified editor without the relevant conflict of interest.
Acceptance is not determined by payment, waiver status, 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.