Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo a systematic editorial evaluation and peer review process to ensure compliance with the journal’s writing guidelines, alignment with its focus and scope, and adherence to high academic standards. The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process in order to maintain objectivity and impartiality.

Desk Review

At the initial stage, the editorial board conducts a desk review to assess whether the submitted manuscript conforms to the journal’s formatting requirements, thematic scope, and expected scholarly quality. Manuscripts that do not fully meet these criteria may be returned to the authors for revision prior to further consideration. In certain circumstances, manuscripts deemed unsuitable may be rejected at this stage.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the desk review will be forwarded to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area addressed by the manuscript. Manuscripts that do not pass the desk review stage will not proceed to the external review process.

Reviewer Recommendations

Following the evaluation process, reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accepted – The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without requiring further revisions.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions – The manuscript may be accepted for publication after minor revisions addressing the reviewers’ comments.
• Accepted with Major Revisions – The manuscript requires substantial revisions, including but not limited to improvements in theoretical framework, methodological approach, data analysis, or structural organization.
• Rejected – The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication due to significant deficiencies or fundamental issues.

The editorial board will take the reviewers’ recommendations into consideration when determining the subsequent course of action.

Revision Stage

Manuscripts requiring revision will be returned to the authors along with the reviewers’ comments and a review summary form. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts within the specified timeframe. Generally, three weeks are allocated for major revisions, while one week is provided for minor revisions. Upon resubmission, authors are required to submit the revised manuscript together with the completed review summary form indicating how the reviewers’ comments have been addressed.

Final Decision

Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, the editorial board will conduct a further evaluation to ensure that the authors have adequately responded to the reviewers’ recommendations. Based on this assessment, a final decision regarding the manuscript will be made. A manuscript may still be rejected at this stage if the revisions are considered insufficient.

Proofreading

Manuscripts that have been accepted for publication will undergo a proofreading stage to ensure linguistic accuracy, clarity of expression, and overall consistency in academic presentation.

Publication Confirmation

Prior to publication, the final layout of the manuscript will be sent to the authors for confirmation. At this stage, authors are invited to review the formatted version of the manuscript and correct any typographical or formatting errors. After the author’s confirmation has been received, the editorial team will proceed with the manuscript’s online and print publication.