Submission & Peer Review Process
All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening to confirm scope fit, submission completeness, and declared ethical compliance. Manuscripts that meet screening requirements proceed to double-blind peer review, in which author and reviewer identities are concealed to reduce bias and protect the integrity of independent evaluation. Reviewers provide evidence-based assessments of methodological soundness, reporting clarity, analytical discipline, and scholarly contribution. Editorial decisions reflect the totality of the record: screening outcomes, reviewer reports, author revisions, and policy compliance across ethics, disclosure, and transparency requirements.
Submission
The author submits the manuscript via the journal portal and completes required declarations.
Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial office assesses scope fit, completeness, ethics disclosures, and minimum reporting adequacy.
Peer Review
Eligible manuscripts are sent to expert reviewers under the journal’s review model.
Revision
Authors address reviewer and editorial comments within the stated revision window.
Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision based on evidence, reviews, and compliance checks.
Double-Blind Review Model
On first use, double-blind peer review means reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers to reduce bias and strengthen fairness. Authors are expected to submit anonymised manuscripts where required.
Decision Types
Appeals Pathway
On first use, an appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of an editorial decision, supported by evidence that a material misunderstanding or process irregularity occurred. Appeals are assessed through an escalation route described under Publication Ethics.
Timelines
The journal communicates target time windows for review and revision in the submission portal and/or journal policies. Authors are advised to monitor portal notifications for stage changes.