All journal articles undergo a rigorous anonymised peer review process, in which two independent experts evaluate the manuscript within eight weeks of submission. This approach ensures that both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain anonymous, fostering an impartial and constructive assessment. Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, and overall contribution to the field. This process is designed to uphold the highest academic standards and to support the development of well-founded and impactful research. In cases where the two peer reviewers offer significantly divergent or opposing evaluations of a manuscript, the editorial team takes additional steps to ensure a fair and balanced outcome. The editors may conduct a comparative analysis of the reviewers’ comments to identify the basis of the disagreement—whether it concerns methodology, interpretation, or relevance to the field. In such instances, a third independent reviewer may be invited to provide an additional assessment. Alternatively, the editors may engage in a direct dialogue with the existing reviewers or the authors to clarify specific points. This careful mediation process ensures that decisions are not based solely on majority opinion but on a reasoned and transparent evaluation of the manuscript’s scholarly merit.
Other entries—such as commentaries, book reviews, conference reviews, and similar contributions—are reviewed directly by the editor or designated editorial board members. While these pieces do not undergo the full anonymised peer review process required for research articles, they are nonetheless subject to critical editorial scrutiny to ensure clarity, relevance, and alignment with the journal’s aims and standards. Editors may request revisions or clarifications from authors before acceptance. This streamlined but rigorous process maintains the quality and coherence of the journal’s broader content, while encouraging timely and diverse contributions to scholarly dialogue.
Reviewers are expected to provide fair, balanced, and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Feedback should be clear, objective, and aimed at helping authors improve the quality of their work.
All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. These may include financial interests, personal relationships, or academic competition.
Reviews should be completed within the requested timeframe to support an efficient and timely editorial process.
Reviewers are expected to uphold high ethical standards by avoiding bias, respecting intellectual property, and maintaining professionalism throughout the review process.