Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment for journal scope, article type, completeness, formatting, originality, ethical compliance, and scientific suitability. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned for correction or rejected without external review.

 

Plagiarism Screening

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment undergo plagiarism screening using iThenticate. A similarity score above 20% prompts editorial assessment but does not, by itself, establish plagiarism.

 

Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review. Normally, at least three independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript; the number may vary according to the subject matter and complexity. Authors and reviewers do not receive identifying information about one another.

Reviewers assess originality, methodological quality, ethical conduct, accuracy, clarity, clinical or scientific relevance, and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence.

 

Revision and Reassessment

Reviewer comments are communicated to authors without disclosure of reviewer identities. Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing every comment or explaining why a suggested change was not made.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the editors or returned to the reviewers. Additional review may be requested when necessary.

 

Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript, taking into account its academic merit, reviewer reports, journal policy, and advice from the Editorial Board when appropriate. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final decision.

 

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, and editorial deliberations are confidential. Editors and reviewers must disclose competing interests and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline review when impartial evaluation is not possible.