Complete and accurate information for all authors must be entered into the Journal's online submission system.
Authors are required to provide, where applicable:
Full name of each author.
Institutional affiliation.
Country.
Email address.
Identification of the corresponding author.
Academic degree and field of specialization, where required.
ORCID iD, where available.
The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the Journal throughout the submission, peer review, revision, and publication processes.
The Journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process. Therefore, the version of the manuscript submitted for peer review must not contain information that could reveal the identity of the author(s).
Authors should remove, where applicable:
Author names from the manuscript.
Institutional affiliations.
Acknowledgments that may reveal the identity of the author(s).
Any identifying information in the manuscript file properties.
Authors must ensure that no information capable of revealing their identity appears in the manuscript submitted for anonymous peer review.
The Journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
The author submits the manuscript and all required information through the Journal's online submission system.
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:
Falls within the Journal's aims and scope.
Meets the basic submission requirements.
Is complete and properly prepared.
Complies with the Journal's formatting requirements.
Meets acceptable standards of language and academic writing.
Complies with research and publication ethics.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the author for correction or may be rejected before peer review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewer selection takes into account:
Subject expertise.
Relevant academic or research experience.
Independence.
Absence of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on relevant academic criteria, including:
Originality and scholarly contribution.
Significance of the research.
Clarity of the research objectives.
Appropriateness of the theoretical framework.
Scientific and methodological rigor.
Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation.
Presentation of results.
Discussion and conclusions.
Quality of academic writing.
Compliance with ethical standards.
After considering the reviewers' reports, the editorial decision may be:
Accept
Accept with Minor Revisions
Major Revisions Required
Reject
A request for revisions does not guarantee acceptance for publication.
When revisions are requested, authors must submit:
A revised version of the manuscript.
A detailed response explaining how the reviewers' and/or editors' comments have been addressed.
The revised manuscript may undergo further editorial assessment or be returned to reviewers for additional evaluation.
After the manuscript has satisfied the required scientific, editorial, and ethical standards, the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editorial body makes the final decision regarding publication.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the final editorial and production stages before publication according to the Journal's procedures and publication schedule.
All submitted manuscripts, peer review reports, editorial correspondence, and related documents are treated as confidential.
Reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished information, ideas, or data contained in submitted manuscripts for personal or research purposes.
Authors, reviewers, editors, and members of the Editorial Board are expected to respect the confidentiality and integrity of the peer review and publication process.