Article Review Process

1. The journal’s editorial board reviews all submitted materials within its scope to ensure expert evaluation.
2. Reviewers include experts from the Editorial Board as well as external specialists—leading scholars in the journal’s field—who hold academic degrees relevant to the article’s subject and have published works on the topic within the last three years.
3. A reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of the scientific journal or publisher, conducting a scientific assessment of submitted materials to determine their suitability for publication.
4. The Editor-in-Chief selects the reviewers for each article.
5. Each article is reviewed by two experts. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may assign additional reviewers.
6. The review process is confidential. Neither the reviewer nor the author is informed of each other’s identity or institutional affiliation (double-blind review). Confidentiality may only be breached if the reviewer reports fraudulent or inaccurate data in the manuscript.
7. The review period is determined on a case-by-case basis to ensure timely publication, but it should not exceed one month.
8. The review must address the following aspects:
• The article’s relevance to its stated topic.
• Alignment with contemporary scientific advancements.
• Readability in terms of language, style, structure, and clarity of tables, diagrams, illustrations, and formulas.
• The necessity of publication, considering prior works in the field.
• The article’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as required revisions or additions.
9. Based on their evaluation, the reviewer provides one of the following recommendations (with justification):
• The article is recommended for publication as is.
• The article is recommended for publication after minor revisions.
• The article requires additional review by another expert.
• The article is not suitable for publication.
10. If revisions are required, the editorial board sends the review to the author with a request to address the comments or provide a reasoned rebuttal. The revised manuscript undergoes a second round of review.
11. If the authors choose not to revise their manuscript, they must notify the editorial board of their decision to withdraw the article. If the revised manuscript is not submitted within one month of receiving the review, and the authors do not formally withdraw it, the editorial board will remove it from consideration and notify the authors accordingly.
12. If unresolved disagreements arise between the author and reviewers, the editorial board may assign an additional review. In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision during an editorial board meeting.
13. The editorial board decides on acceptance or rejection based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
14. A positive review does not guarantee publication. The final decision is made by the editorial board and recorded in meeting minutes. Articles rejected by the editorial board will not be reconsidered. Grounds for rejection include:
• The manuscript does not align with the journal’s scope.
• The manuscript does not meet submission requirements.
• Negative expert reviews.
• An editorial board decision, documented in meeting minutes.
• Ethical violations by the author.
15. The editorial board notifies authors of acceptance or rejection via email or through the journal’s submission system.
16. Original reviews are stored in the editorial office for five years.