Peer-review

Last Updated: May 2026

Our peer-review process is built upon the pillars of objectivity, confidentiality, and rigor. We operate under a double-blind protocol, ensuring that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain undisclosed throughout the evaluation. 

To maintain the integrity of this process, no direct communication between reviewers and authors is permitted at any stage. We are committed to a timely evaluation cycle, with a standard review completion target of 14 business days. Should any unforeseen delays arise, prompt communication between the reviewer and the editorial office is mandatory to ensure the transparency of the publication timeline.  All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents throughout the review and editorial process.

Selection and Expertise of Referees

Reviewers are selected based on stringent expertise criteria to ensure the highest quality of scholarly assessment. Every referee is required to hold an advanced degree (Ph.D., MD, or equivalent) and must possess a proven publication record in reputable journals along with active field experience. 

To minimize potential conflicts of interest and ensure a diversity of independent perspectives, we enforce a strict affiliation policy; reviewers must not share institutional affiliations with the authors or with each other.

Editors reserve the full authority to reject or reassign reviewers where conflicts of interest, insufficient expertise, or concerns regarding impartiality are identified. 

Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Review Workflow and Assessment

The editorial journey commences with the Preparation phase, during which manuscripts undergo rigorous anonymization and the application of security watermarks. Upon successfully passing internal administrative checks, potential referees are issued an Invitation that includes essential metadata to assist in their decision, such as the article title, abstract, date of original submission, and the specific journal to which the work was submitted. Through the Review Confirmation Form, referees may request to adjust the submission deadline, provided that any proposed extension does not exceed a total of 20 days.

Once the assignment is accepted, the Peer-Review Submission phase begins, where reviewers are expected to provide comprehensive qualitative commentary, quantitative scores, and a definitive editorial recommendation. This is followed by the Editorial Assessment, during which an Editor evaluates the feedback, typically within one to seven days, to reach a formal decision. If the initial feedback is inconclusive or requires further validation, the article may be sent back for additional review. Finally, the Revision stage allows authors to implement the necessary improvements; depending on the depth of the changes, the manuscript may then be prepared for a second round of formal peer review to ensure all scholarly requirements have been met. Editors may make editorial revisions to improve clarity, consistency, and formatting without altering the scientific substance of the manuscript.

If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, fabricated data, unethical experimentation, or other forms of scholarly misconduct, they are obligated to report such concerns confidentially to the editorial office with supporting evidence whenever possible.

Reviewers may decline assignments when the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise or when they are unable to provide a timely and sufficiently rigorous evaluation.

Evaluation Criteria and Scoring

Reviewers are tasked with assessing manuscripts across several critical dimensions, including Language and Style, Research Background, Methodology, Results and Discussion, Conclusion, and the accuracy of References.

To provide clear, actionable guidance to authors, we utilize a standardized scoring scale ranging from 1 to 5, where a higher score reflects a better quality of article. This structured feedback mechanism ensures that the scholarly dialogue remains constructive and rigorously focused on enhancing the overall quality and impact of the manuscript prior to publication.

Reviewers may also opt to have their names displayed on the journal's homepage. Additionally, they have the choice to follow up on the progress of the author's revisions; should a reviewer decline to follow up, further decision-making is delegated to the assigned Academic/Sectional Editor. The Editor reserves the right to invite additional reviewers if necessary. Final publication decisions remain under the authority of the editorial team.

Ethical Conduct and Recognition

We maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward unethical review practices. Prohibited activities include suggesting personal citations that do not enhance the content quality, any attempt to contact authors directly, biasing review outcomes for personal or institutional gain, and the provision of discriminatory or non-constructive feedback.

In appreciation of the vital service provided by our referees, we offer a robust Reviewer Recognition program. This includes the issuance of official Certificates of Recognition, named acknowledgment in the published articles, and priority submission status for the reviewer’s own future research.

Should a reviewer submit their own manuscript to the journal, said article may only be published after a minimum of two issues have published following the publication of the article they reviewed.

The use of Artificial Intelligence tools during the peer-review process must not compromise manuscript confidentiality. Reviewers are prohibited from uploading unpublished manuscripts or confidential materials into public or third-party AI systems without explicit authorization from the journal.

Authors may submit formal appeals regarding editorial decisions; however, all appeals will undergo independent editorial reassessment, and the journal reserves the right to uphold the original decision following internal review.  All participants in the peer-review process are expected to uphold professionalism, confidentiality, fairness, and respect throughout the evaluation procedure.