Peer-review Policy

Peer-review Policy

A double-blind peer-review process will be applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal. In this model, neither the reviewers nor the authors are aware of one other's identities. We believe that this approach is perhaps the most appropriate way to ensure the most unbiased reviews and opinions on papers.

Initial Technical Review/Evaluation

The Commissioning Editor first scrutinizes all manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, include severe scientific problems, detected plagiarism/similarity index, have poor grammar or English language, are outside the journal's purpose, and scope, or are not written according to the journal's guidelines. Those that fulfil the basic requirements are sent to at least two experts for evaluation.


  • In general, all articles are peer-reviewed by at least two competent external experts in the subject area. While all of the reviewers' reports will be considered when choosing whether to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript, the Editor retains ultimate responsibility for approval or rejection. The Editor-in-Chief/ Commissioning Editor makes the final decision.

  • Before reaching a final judgment, in case of reviewer comments are not appropriate or confusing to get the proper clarification, the Editor-in-Chief/ Commissioning Editor can consult one or more reviewer/board members for feedback on a manuscript.

  • The administrative support of the Board members or reviewers ensures the integrity of the peer-review process.

  • Editors will allocate any submissions they cannot handle (e.g., if they are the author of an article submitted to their journal) to a member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor, in accordance with COPE principles on ethical editing for Editors.

Author's suggestion for the reviewer

The authors might suggest peer-reviewers based on the criteria below:

  • The proposed reviewers should have a higher academic standing in the submitted article's subject area, which should be reflected in their publications.

  • Recommendations for reviewers should not come from the authors' institute or previous affiliations.

  • Authors must supply the suggested reviewers' institutional/academic email addresses and online links to the suggested reviewers' academic profile sites.

  • The journal has the right to reject any reviewer from the provided list.

  • If the authors can successfully argue against the editor's negative choice, the manuscript can be referred to a third reviewer. The final decision will be made based on his recommendations. Suppose authors challenge the editor's unfavourable decision with reasonable arguments. In that case, the manuscript may be sent to one more reviewer, and the final decision will be made based on reviewer recommendations.