Peer Review Process

1. Submission of Paper
   The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal’s online submission portal.
   
   
2. Editorial Office Assessment
   The editorial office evaluates the paper’s composition and formatting to ensure it adheres to the journal’s Author Guidelines. This includes verifying that all required sections are included and that the paper meets basic stylistic standards. At this stage, the paper is also screened for plagiarism. Note that the quality of the research is not assessed during this step.
   
   
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
   The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) assesses whether the paper is suitable for the journal, evaluating its originality, significance, and relevance. If the paper does not meet the journal’s standards or scope, it may be rejected without further review.
   
   
4. Invitation to Reviewers
   The handling editor invites potential reviewers (typically 2 or more) who have expertise in the paper’s subject area. If initial invitees decline, additional reviewers are invited as needed.
   
   
5. Response to Invitations
   Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. They may accept or decline the invitation. If declining, they are encouraged to suggest alternative reviewers.
   
   
6. Review is Conducted
   Reviewers allocate time to read the paper thoroughly. During the initial read, they form an overall impression of the work. If significant flaws are identified, the reviewer may recommend rejection at this stage. Otherwise, they conduct a detailed review, often rereading the paper multiple times and compiling a point-by-point evaluation. The review is submitted to the journal with a recommendation to:
• Accept the paper,
• Reject the paper, or
• Request revisions (classified as either major or minor) before reconsideration.
  
  
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
   The handling editor evaluates all received reviews to make an informed decision. If the reviews are inconsistent or contradictory, the editor may seek an additional review to obtain further insight before finalizing the decision.
   
   
8. The Decision is Communicated
   The editor communicates the decision to the author via the journal’s portal. The decision letter includes anonymized reviewer comments and feedback.
   
   
9. Next Steps
• If the paper is accepted, it is sent to the production team for publication.
• If the paper is rejected or requires revisions, the editor provides constructive feedback from the reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript.
• Reviewers are notified of the decision and, in cases of revision, may be asked to evaluate the revised manuscript (unless they have opted out of further involvement). For minor revisions, the handling editor may conduct the follow-up review instead of involving the original reviewers.