The journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.
Based on the following criteria, the reviewers assess if the paper may be accepted without revisions, with minor or major revisions, or if it should be rejected. The core of any review is an objective assessment of both the technical rigour and the novelty of the presented work.
1. Clarity of thesis statement and declaration of purpose.
2. The relevance of the theoretical discussion and description of the empirical investigation.
3. Reproducible methods of the research and results.
4. Well-founded discussion/analysis.
5. Well-structured and logically coherent composition.
6. Unambiguous and properly analysed data.
7. Data supported by conclusions.
8. The originality of the work.
9. Awareness of relevant research.
Peer-reviewer responsibilities to autors
1. Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with the rationale for your opinion.
2. Provide your peer-review as soon as possible within 30 day. If you cannot do so, please contact thejournal office immediately at journal platform.
3. Indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
4. Avoid personal comments or criticism.
5. Maintain the confidentiality of the peer-review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper without permission from the editorial office.
Peer-reviewer responsibilities to editors
1. Alert the editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest (seeEthical policy, Conflicts of interest) you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
2. Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
3. Note any ethical concerns, such as the substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.
Peer-reviewer responsibilities to readers
1. Ensure that positively reviewed papers meet the journal standards.
2. Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
3. Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
Reviews can and should be critical, but we ask reviewers to keep in mind that dismissive language and personalised criticisms may be viewed as reflecting bias or ulterior motives on the part of the referee.
The journal Editorial Office handles the administrative aspects of the peer-review process for contributed papers. All peer-reviews must be submitted through the Peer-review system.