Peer Review

Each manuscript first undergoes an editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief. This assessment covers the formal submission requirements, citation standards, editorial policy, and the Journal’s aims and scope. If technical deficiencies are identified, the author is given a reasonable period of no more than seven calendar days to correct them.

Turnitin is used as an auxiliary screening tool. Compliance with academic integrity requirements is determined through substantive assessment of the manuscript, rather than by a similarity report alone. An admissible manuscript is anonymised and sent to at least two reviewers under a double-blind peer-review procedure. Reviewers submit their reports within ten calendar days. This is the period for reviewers’ reports; it is not a deadline for the Journal’s final decision. The anonymity of authors and reviewers is maintained throughout the process and when review materials are subsequently shared.

Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter. Additional reviewers may be invited where necessary, including for interdisciplinary work. If the initial two reviewers’ recommendations on publication differ materially, the manuscript is referred to a third reviewer with appropriate expertise. Reviewers use the Journal’s established assessment criteria and submit written reports on the Blind Peer Review Report Form.

A reviewer may recommend publication following minor technical or substantive editing, substantial revision, or rejection. Recommendations for revision must be supported by comments. The Editor-in-Chief communicates the requested changes to the author and assesses how the author has addressed the reviewers’ recommendations. The Editorial Board considers the reviewers’ reports and makes the final decision on publication or rejection.

A person involved in the Journal’s publishing activities who submits a manuscript does not participate in its review or publication decision. Where substantial revisions would delay publication, or another objective ground exists, the Editor-in-Chief may assign the manuscript to a subsequent issue. If publication is refused, the author may request the reviewers’ reports, subject to the preservation of reviewer anonymity. An author may also request an official certificate confirming acceptance for publication.