Peer review policy and Transparency Statement

In line with the journal's commitment to academic integrity, transparency, and quality, we employ a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure objectivity and impartiality. Each manuscript is evaluated by two independent external reviewers.

Author-Suggested Reviewers: Authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers in their cover letter by providing institutional email addresses or unique identifiers (e.g., ORCID or Scopus ID) to facilitate verification. However, the final selection of reviewers is at the sole discretion of the editor. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific individuals from the review process, accompanied by a clear rationale. Please note that excessive exclusion requests may hinder the review process and may not be accommodated.

Manipulation Warning: Any attempt to manipulate the peer review process — including the submission of falsified reviewer information — will result in immediate rejection and may lead to further investigation under the journal's research misconduct policy.

Review Guidelines: Reviewers are expected to adhere to the journal's ethical guidelines for peer review (see Publication Ethics: Reviewers' Responsibilities). The following additional responsibilities apply within the journal's peer review process:

  • Competing Interests: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation, including financial interests, personal relationships, or academic rivalries with any author, institution, or company associated with the manuscript. If a conflict becomes apparent during the review, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately and recuse themselves.
  • Co-reviewer Policy: Reviewers must obtain prior permission from the editor before involving any co-reviewer. The names and affiliations of any co-reviewer must be provided to the editor for conflict-of-interest verification and for due recognition. The invited reviewer remains responsible for the quality and integrity of the final review report.
  • How to Prepare the Review Report: Review reports should provide constructive, specific, and actionable comments. Reviewers should structure their report to address: (a) significance and originality; (b) adequacy of methodology and data; (c) clarity of presentation; and (d) ethical concerns, if any. Comments to authors should be professional and free of personal criticism.
  • Suspected Misconduct: If a reviewer suspects research or publication misconduct — including data fabrication, plagiarism, redundant publication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest — they must notify the editor confidentially and must not investigate the matter independently or contact the authors directly.

For the ethical principles underlying these guidelines — including confidentiality, objectivity, promptness, and acknowledgement of sources — see Publication Ethics → Reviewers' Responsibilities.

Expected Timeframes: The journal aims to complete the first round of peer review within 4–8 weeks of submission. Detailed, regularly updated peer review metrics are as follows (Table):

Stage Average Duration Notes
1. Initial Editorial Assessment 3–7 days Desk rejection or forwarded to reviewers
2. Reviewer Invitation 5–14 days Time required to secure at least two reviewers
3. Peer Review Process 3–6 weeks (21–45 days) May vary depending on reviewer availability and subject complexity
4. First Decision 4–8 weeks from submission Includes reviewer comments and editorial decision
5. Author Revision (Major/Minor) Up to 2 weeks Time allowed for authors to submit revised manuscript
6. Second-Round Review (if needed) ~2 weeks If requested by reviewers or editors
7. Final Decision ~2 weeks Editor issues final acceptance or rejection

This policy reflects our dedication to fostering a reliable, transparent, and ethically sound environment for scientific publishing.