Peer Review Policy

1. Review Model
All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to minimize bias and maintain fairness.

2. Initial Screening
Each submission is first assessed by the editorial office for compliance with journal guidelines, scope, and ethical standards. Manuscripts failing these checks may be desk-rejected.

3. Reviewer Selection

  • At least two independent expert reviewers are assigned based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Additional reviewers may be invited if evaluations are inconclusive or if specialized input is required.

4. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts for:

  • Originality and significance of contribution
  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
  • Clarity and coherence of presentation
  • Ethical compliance and integrity of research
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership

5. Confidentiality and Integrity

  • All review reports are confidential and shared only with the editorial team and authors.
  • Reviewers must not use or disclose any manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

6. AI Usage Policy for Reviewers
Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using AI tools to perform substantive judgment on manuscripts, including evaluating methodology, interpreting data, or forming scientific conclusions.
AI may only be used for:

  • Improving the clarity and readability of review comments
  • Structuring feedback for better communication

All recommendations and decisions must originate from the reviewer’s own professional expertise. Any violation of this policy will be considered a breach of ethical standards.

7. Timelines
The standard review period is 4–8 weeks, though complex manuscripts may require additional time. Authors are notified promptly of any delays.

8. Decision Process
Final decisions—acceptance, revision, or rejection—are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate Editors, based on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial judgment. A single serious concern from a reviewer or editor may lead to rejection.

9. Appeals and Revisions
Authors may appeal decisions with a reasoned response. Revised manuscripts undergo further review as deemed necessary by the editorial team.

10. Ethical Oversight
All manuscripts must comply with international research ethics standards (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki for human studies, IACUC for animal research). Any suspected misconduct will be handled according to COPE guidelines.