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.

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.

To promote transparency, the journal regularly publishes peer review metrics. For the period January–June 2025, the data are as follows:

  • Total submissions received: 262 manuscripts
  • Accepted manuscripts: 107
  • Rejected manuscripts: 85
  • Under review: Remaining manuscripts currently under evaluation
  • Average time from submission to final decision: Approximately 100 days

Peer Review and Publication Timeline

Stage

Average Duration

Notes

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

3–7 days

Desk rejection or forwarded to reviewers

2. Reviewer Invitation & Acceptance

5–10 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

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.

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