Peer Review Process

​

The peer-review process is an independent and impartial evaluation used to assess scholarly articles. A double-blind peer review process is followed by this journal when it comes to reviewing all submitted manuscripts. As a general rule, each paper is peer-reviewed by two independent academic experts who have knowledge in the field. One of the objectives of peer review is intended to provide constructive but rigorous comments to improve the quality of research and the English language. The language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. It is author's responsibility to a improve the English quality. Furthermore, the peer review process facilitated by the journal is to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published.

 

Overall, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the scientific quality of the publication process, including final acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and special issue topics, and new Editorial Board members.

  

 

 

 

 

1.   Editorial Assessment

After submission of the paper, the chief editor will determine whether the article is appropriate for the journal in general. Your paper will be sent for assessment by independent experts in your field. In the event that a paper is judged to be of sufficient quality for publication in the journal, then it will be peer reviewed.

 

2.   Reject or send to reviewers

The chief editor selects two peer reviewers, and the review process is conducted. The initial decision is generally made within 2 weeks after the reviewers decide whether to review the paper, and the corresponding author is notified. During the review process, reviewers are asked to judge on the validity, significance, and originality of the work. If sent for external review, each manuscript is reviewed by leading scientists in the relevant field. Decisions on reviewed manuscripts are usually reached within three weeks.

 

3.  Editor assess review report

Once the chief editor has received and considered the reviewer reports, as well as making their own assessment of your work, the editorial desk will let you know their decision. The reviewer reports will be shared with you, along with any additional guidance from the editor.

 

Review reports should also help authors revise their papers so that they may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for resubmission or submission to a different journal.

 

During this stage of the process, authors will have time to amend your article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes. The reviewers’ comments can be extremely helpful in ensuring that the article is of high quality.

 

4.  Final decision communication to author

Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal. They might have only a few straightforward recommendations (‘minor amendments’) or require more substantial changes before the paper will be accepted for publication (‘major amendments’). As soon as  the revisions bring the paper up to the standard required by that journal, it then moves to the next stage of publication. The editor-in-chief will make the final decision based on the recommendations of the editors and reviewers, and this will be communicated to the author at the end of the process.

​

The reviewers’ comments are generally sent to authors within 3 weeks after submission. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer's response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered, and their service not properly appreciated. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s editor-in-chief.