Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are chosen carefully to ensure a fair, unbiased, and high-quality evaluation. Appropriate reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

They maintain full independence from the authors and their institutions.

They possess expertise in the same or closely related research area as the submitted manuscript.

They have a strong and recent publication record in the relevant field.

They are capable of providing a thoughtful, informed, and timely review.

Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may suggest potential reviewers who have suitable domain expertise. However, the journal retains full discretion regarding whether or not to invite these individuals. Suggested reviewers must:

Have recent scholarly publications in the relevant area.

Not have co-authored or submitted a publication with any of the authors in recent years.

Not share current or recent institutional affiliations with any of the authors.

Not be ongoing or recent collaborators.

Not have any close personal relationship with the authors.

Not possess any financial or competing interests related to the manuscript.

When recommending reviewers, authors should provide:

Full name

Email address

Institutional affiliation

Research area

ORCID (if available)

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to uphold ethical and professional standards throughout the evaluation process. Reviewers must:

Declare any conflict of interest prior to accepting a review invitation.

Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.

Destroy manuscript files upon completing the review.

Provide objective, balanced, and constructive feedback, free from bias related to gender, nationality, religion, ideology, or personal beliefs.

Report any suspected ethical concerns such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, inappropriate data manipulation, or other forms of misconduct.

Avoid recommending citations to their own work unless clearly relevant.

Deliver review reports within the specified timeline or request an extension if needed.

Roles of Participants in the Peer Review Process

Managing Editor

Performs initial checks related to journal scope, formatting, completeness, and plagiarism (using tools such as iThenticate).

Identifies suitable reviewers and manages all communication between authors, reviewers, and editors.

Ensures smooth progression of the manuscript through the review workflow.

🔗 https://www.ithenticate.com/

Academic Editor

Oversees the entire peer review process for assigned manuscripts.

Evaluates reviewer reports and makes the final editorial decision (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).

This role is generally held by the Editor-in-Chief, but may be delegated to an Editorial Board Member, Guest Editor, or qualified subject expert.

The Academic Editor’s name will be published with the article once accepted to ensure transparency.

(A separate Peer Review Guidelines document can also be created if needed.)

Authorship Criteria

The journal adheres to the authorship standards recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
🔗 https://publicationethics.org/

To qualify as an author, each individual must meet all of the following criteria:

Substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, or analysis of the research work; AND

Active involvement in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

Approval of the final version of the manuscript prior to publication; AND

Accountability for the accuracy, integrity, and reliability of the entire work.

Individuals who do not meet all criteria should not be listed as authors.

Corresponding Author

For multi-authored manuscripts, one author must be designated as the Corresponding Author, who is responsible for:

Managing all communication with the journal during submission, review, and publication.

Ensuring that all listed authors meet authorship criteria.

Handling declarations such as conflicts of interest, acknowledgments, and ethical compliance.

Responding to editorial queries or post-publication concerns.

Equal / Dual Authorship

The journal permits:

Equal (co-first) authorship, and

Dual corresponding authorship

if two contributors share equivalent roles.
Such designations must be clearly stated in the Author Contributions section.

Group Authorship

For large collaborative projects:

The group must determine which members qualify as authors.

All listed authors must meet the standard authorship criteria and accept responsibility for the work.

Group names may be included, but individual contributors must be identified.

Authorship Disputes

Determining authorship roles is the responsibility of the authors prior to submission.
Editors cannot mediate authorship disputes.

Any disagreements must be resolved by the authors’ institutions in accordance with COPE guidance:

How to Spot Authorship Problems
🔗 https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/how-spot-authorship-problems

Authorship Changes

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors can only be considered before acceptance of the manuscript.

Such requests must include:

A written, signed statement from all listed authors, and

Consent from the author being added or removed.

No changes will be allowed after acceptance unless mandated by ethical or legal concerns.

Author Contributions (CRediT Taxonomy)

The journal requires authors to specify their roles using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)
🔗 https://credit.niso.org/

Examples include:

• Conceptualization
• Methodology
• Software
• Validation
• Writing – Original Draft
• Writing – Review & Editing
• Supervision
• Funding Acquisition

This information must appear in the Declarations section of the manuscript.

ORCID

Authors are strongly encouraged to provide their ORCID iD
🔗 https://orcid.org/
to ensure accurate attribution and connection of their scholarly work across platforms.

Acknowledgments

Individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., technical help, editing assistance, data support) should be acknowledged with a clear description of their contribution.

Use of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

AI tools cannot be credited as authors.

Authors may use AI tools to improve readability (grammar, spelling, formatting), but not to generate original ideas, analyses, interpretations, or conclusions.

Any use of AI tools must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript.

Failure to disclose AI use may be considered scientific misconduct.