Review Policy-Guidelines

The journal is committed to a fair, transparent, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process. Manuscripts are evaluated according to their scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's scope, and ethical standards.

1. Editorial Screening

The editorial team initially assesses all submitted manuscripts to determine whether they:

  • fall within the journal's aims and scope;
  • meet the journal's basic submission and formatting requirements;
  • demonstrate sufficient scholarly quality and originality;
  • comply with the journal's publication and research-ethics requirements; and
  • are suitable for external peer review.

The journal may reject a manuscript at the editorial screening stage without external peer review where it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum quality requirements, or does not comply with the journal's policies.

2. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally subjected to double-blind peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process.

The journal normally seeks at least two independent peer-review reports for each manuscript. Where reviews are conflicting, inconclusive, or otherwise insufficient for an editorial decision, the Editor-in-Chief may obtain an additional review.

Reviewers are selected based on relevant subject expertise and, where appropriate, methodological expertise. The journal seeks to avoid selecting reviewers who have a conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the research.

The final decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the peer-review reports, editorial assessment, and the journal's standards. A positive peer-review report does not guarantee publication.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively;
  • assess the quality, originality, significance, methodology, analysis, and presentation of the research;
  • maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process;
  • disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
  • decline the assignment where they cannot provide an impartial review;
  • identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited, where applicable;
  • avoid making personal, discriminatory, or defamatory comments;
  • not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage; and
  • submit their review within the agreed timeframe or inform the Editor-in-Chief if additional time is required.

Reviewers must not share, copy, reproduce, or distribute unpublished manuscripts or their contents without permission from the journal.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief of any relationship or circumstance that could affect the impartiality of their assessment, including personal, professional, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships with the authors.

The Editor-in-Chief must also declare and appropriately manage conflicts of interest and should not make editorial decisions on manuscripts where they have a conflict.

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose manuscript content, review reports, editorial correspondence, or the identities of participants in the review process except where disclosure is authorized by the journal or required for legitimate editorial or ethical investigation.

6. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected primarily based on relevant academic or professional expertise.

The journal seeks independent reviewers and, where appropriate, may consider geographical or institutional diversity. The journal does not select reviewers solely based on authors' personal recommendations.

The journal may use appropriate databases, scholarly profiles, editorial recommendations, or other reliable sources to identify qualified reviewers.

7. Revision and Re-Review

Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer and editorial comments.

Authors should respond to substantive reviewer comments and provide explanations where they disagree with a recommendation.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers where the Editor-in-Chief considers this necessary.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' assessments together with the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal.

Possible decisions include: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; or Reject.

The Editor-in-Chief may request an additional expert opinion where reviewer reports conflict or where specialist advice is required.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

9. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Independence

Peer reviewers provide recommendations; they do not make the final publication decision.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly and ethical considerations and must not be influenced by commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, personal relationships, or other inappropriate considerations.

10. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant procedural error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or failure to consider relevant information materially affected the decision.

An appeal should provide specific and substantive reasons. Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not necessarily constitute grounds for an appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where practicable.

11. Ethical Concerns and Peer-Review Misconduct

The journal investigates credible concerns concerning reviewer misconduct, manipulation of the peer-review process, breaches of confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or other unethical conduct.

Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may discontinue a review, replace a reviewer, investigate the matter further, contact relevant institutions, or take other appropriate action to protect the integrity of the editorial and peer-review process.

12. Peer Review and Publication Ethics

The peer-review process operates in conjunction with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Ethics Policy, which addresses authorship, research involving human participants, informed consent, vulnerable populations, conflicts of interest, research misconduct, corrections, retractions, Expressions of Concern, and other publication-ethics matters.

 

Policy status: This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to the journal and may be updated to reflect developments in scholarly publishing and peer-review standards.

 

REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Peer reviewers shall evaluate an article based on the following ten (10) principles and standards, which are minimum requirements for accepting a manuscript. 

  1. The title is brief, precise, and appropriate to the content and purpose of the article. (Example: Active verbs are used instead of complex noun-based phrases. It is around 12 to 15 words long and summarises the main idea or ideas of the study.)
  2. The abstract accurately describes the paper's content. (For example, it presents a concise overview of the research problem, study purpose, research design, and key findings, and is approximately 180-200 words long.)
  3. The keywords are sufficient and appropriate. (Example: It does not use words or phrases from the title and supplements the title's content. These are descriptive, represent key concepts and/or nouns, and are 8-10 words.)
  4. The introduction provides an overview of a general subject area, focusing on a particular topic of inquiry. (Example: It describes the purpose, scope, context, significance, background, hypothesis(es), question(s), brief methodology, outcome(s), and an outline of the remaining structure and organization of the article.)
  5. The literature review provides an overview of the sources explored and demonstrates how the study fits within the broader field of research. (Example: It gives a description, summary, and critical evaluation of the sources explored regarding the research problem(s) being investigated.)
  6. The research methodology is adequately described. (Example: It represents the actions taken to investigate the research problem and the rationale for applying the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze the information applied to understanding the problem.)
  7. The results are clearly presented. (Example: It reports the study's findings based on the methodology(ies) applied and in a logical sequence, without bias or interpretation, if the data is generated from the author's research.)
  8. The discussion is clear, and the findings are accurately analyzed. (Example: It interprets and describes the significance of findings in light of what was already known about the research problem. It explains new understandings or insights that emerged from studying the issue. It is connected to the introduction through research questions or hypothesis(es) and the literature review.)
  9. The findings support the conclusion. (Example: It helps readers understand why the research is relevant to them. It synthesizes key points and, if applicable, recommends new areas for future research.
  10. English Language and Style meet the standard. (Example: It is clear, unambiguous, and objective, i.e., it provides reasons and evidence. It employs the active voice, with a minimum use of passive voice where necessary. It mainly uses ordinary language rather than complicated expressions and technical terminology.)