Review policy

Review Policy

 

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

All manuscripts meeting the journal's formal requirements undergo a double-blind peer-review process. This means:

  • The identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.
  • Reviewers are not informed of the identities of other reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief, editors, and section editors cannot act as reviewers for submissions if they are aware of the author’s identity.

Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors to maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

  1. Ensuring the Integrity of the Blind Peer-Review Process

To preserve anonymity during the review process, authors must ensure that:

Names and affiliations are removed from the manuscript text.

In Microsoft Office documents, personal information is removed from file properties by navigating to:

File > Save As > Tools > Security > Remove personal information from file properties on save > Save.

For PDF files, author names and affiliations must be deleted from Document Properties under the File menu in Adobe Acrobat.

  1. Review Process

To facilitate consistency, reviewers use a standardized review form. Based on their evaluations, manuscripts are classified as:

  • Accepted,
  • Accepted with Conditions (requiring revisions), or
  •  

For manuscripts accepted conditionally, the author is required to revise the submission according to the reviewers’ comments. Reviewers have the right to request a re-evaluation of the revised manuscript before a final decision is made.

  1. Editor’s Choice (Exceptional Circumstances)

In exceptional cases, the journal may opt for an “Editor’s Choice” review process instead of the standard double-blind review. This approach applies to manuscripts of exceptional scholarly importance or relevance, as determined by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

Impartiality and anonymity are strictly ensured during the process.

The final decision is made following internal consultation within the Editorial Board to avoid potential bias.

  1. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief has the authority to make the final decision regarding publication. However, the Editorial Board may challenge or overturn the decision at any stage of the review process.

  1. Editing of Accepted Manuscripts

Accepted manuscripts are edited to align with the journal’s editorial standards. Authors must provide full assistance and cooperation in the process of editing. Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's requirements for form or content or are deemed unsuitable for publication by reviewers.

  1. Plurality of Academic Discussion

To encourage diversity of contributions, no more than one article by the same author will be published in a single volume. However, exceptions apply for:

  • Special issues curated on specific topics.
  • Serial papers or subsequent works that are part of an ongoing scholarly debate or discourse, such as responses to prior articles.
  • Reviews and reports, which are not subject to this limitation.