Peer Review

Following an initial evaluation, the selected manuscript undergoes a peer review process conducted by two external reviewers who specialize in the relevant subject area, as appointed by the Editor. The journal employs a double-blind review system. Reviewers are typically allotted an average of two weeks to complete their review of a manuscript. Each reviewer is assigned only one manuscript at a time. In situations involving contentious or disputed papers, the issue is brought to the Chief Editor’s attention and may be escalated to a third reviewer, as designated by the Chief Editor. While editors themselves do not participate in the peer review process for the journal, they retain the authority to make editorial adjustments to ensure that accepted articles align with the journal’s stylistic guidelines.

Policy on Research Misconduct

In cases of suspected publication misconduct, the initial step involves requesting an explanation from the corresponding author, based on the evidence at hand. If the authors fail to respond or provide an inadequate response, the manuscript will be either withdrawn from the publication process if it is yet unpublished, or retracted if it has already been published. A formal notice of retraction will be issued both in print and on the website. Authors involved in such misconduct will be prohibited from future submissions and considerations at the journal, and the head of the authors’ institution will be notified of the action. Additionally, other Editorial Associations might be informed of the incident.

Acts of plagiarism and other forms of publication misconduct, including image fabrication, data falsification, ‘salami slicing’, duplicate or redundant publication, multiple submissions, as well as selective and misleading reporting or referencing, will be subject to stringent measures.