All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the handling editor to assess their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, compliance with ethical standards, methodological soundness, and similarity index. This initial assessment is intended to ensure baseline quality and suitability and does not constitute external peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be declined at this stage.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are subject to a single-blind peer review process and are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are asked to assess the scientific quality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field, while maintaining strict confidentiality and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the handling editor formulates a recommendation. The final editorial decision—acceptance, revision, or rejection—is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor, independently of the authors and reviewers. All editorial decisions and anonymized reviewer comments are communicated to the authors in writing.

When revisions are requested, authors are invited to submit a revised manuscript within a reasonable timeframe. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. This review and revision process may involve more than one round before a final decision is reached.

Further information regarding submission requirements, ethical standards, and editorial policies is available in the Author Guidelines.