Review Process

The journal follows a structured and rigorous review process to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. All submissions are evaluated systematically to support a fair, objective, and timely editorial decision-making process.

• Manuscripts that do not comply with the journal’s submission guidelines are returned to authors for correction prior to further processing.
• All submissions undergo similarity checking using Turnitin; manuscripts with more than 19% overall similarity or over 3% similarity from a single source require clarification or revision.
• Each manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editorial Team to ensure relevance to the journal’s scope and compliance with basic editorial requirements.
• Following initial evaluation, manuscripts are assigned to an Associate Editor for desk review to assess alignment with the journal’s scope and content requirements, and recommended revisions are communicated to the authors where necessary.
• Manuscripts that meet the journal’s criteria are sent for external peer review by at least two independent reviewers, with statistical review included where appropriate. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and familiarity with the subject area.
• The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review.
• Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Reviews are typically completed within a specified timeframe (e.g., 2–4 weeks) to ensure timely processing of submissions.
• Based on their evaluations, reviewers provide recommendations—accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject—which inform the editorial decision.
• The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Team makes the final decision after considering reviewers’ reports and the overall academic merit of the manuscript. Authors are notified of the decision and provided with reviewers’ comments.
• Where revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments. Revised submissions may undergo further evaluation to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed.
• In cases requiring additional clarification, manuscripts may be sent for further rounds of review before a final decision is reached.
• Accepted manuscripts undergo final checks for technical accuracy, statistical and epidemiological validity, formatting, and language quality, followed by editorial editing to ensure clarity and consistency.
• Proofs of accepted manuscripts are shared with authors for final review and approval prior to publication.
• The Editorial Team retains final authority over all decisions, and manuscripts may be accepted or rejected at any stage of the review process.