The journal operates a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and relevance of all published content.

All submissions undergo an initial desk review conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Team to assess scope alignment, originality, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal’s guidelines.

Manuscripts that pass the desk review are subject to peer review. Authors may choose among three review models:

• Single-blind peer review: anonymous reviewers and disclosed authors.
• Double-blind peer review (default): anonymous reviewers and anonymous authors.
• Open peer review: disclosed reviewers and disclosed authors.

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. In cases of conflicting evaluations, a third reviewer may be appointed. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit, relevance, and methodological rigor.

The Editor-in-Chief is solely responsible for the final decision on whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, or requested for revision. After considering the peer reviewers’ reports and any revisions made by the authors, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final determination based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and alignment with the journal’s scope. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with associate editors or the editorial board but retains ultimate authority over all publication decisions.