Our journal follows a double-blind peer-review process to uphold the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, and academic rigor. This process ensures that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process, fostering unbiased evaluations. The policy is outlined as follows:

1- Anonymity in the Review Process:

Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers to prevent bias. Manuscripts are anonymized, and any identifying details are removed prior to review.

Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors at any stage of the review, ensuring unbiased feedback.

2- Selection of Reviewers:

Manuscripts are evaluated by at least two external reviewers who are experts in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and ability to provide an objective and thorough assessment.

3- Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

     - Originality and relevance of the research

     - Soundness of methodology and analysis

     - Clarity of presentation and organization

     - Contribution to the field of study

4- Editorial Decision:

Upon receiving reviewers’ comments, the editorial team carefully considers the recommendations to make a final decision. The final decision is made by Editor-in-chief and possible outcomes include:

     - Acceptance without revisions

     - Acceptance with minor revisions

     - Major revisions required

     - Rejection

Authors are provided with detailed feedback to enhance their work or understand the decision.

5- Ethical Standards:

Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The integrity of the review process is a cornerstone of our journal’s commitment to ethical publishing practices.

This rigorous and transparent process ensures the publication of high-quality research that contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.