Review Process

The journal follows a double-blind peer review procedure where the reviewers and the authors

do not see each other’s names and affiliations.

1.   Selecting Reviewers

  • Reviewers register into the journal's online platform by sending their CV.
  • Journal Editor accepts the reviewers by checking their competences in the

2.   Internal Review

  • After receiving the manuscript from the author, the journal editor does a thorough initial review and, if finds eligible, sends a letter of initial acceptance to the author;
  • Journal Editor sends the manuscript to the reviewer for in-depth blind review through the online platform;
  • Once the reviewer accepts the manuscript, does the review according to the criteria provided by the guideline;
  • The reviewer sends the manuscript back to the editor through the online platform suggesting acceptance with minor or major In some cases, the reviewer may suggest an acceptance of the manuscript as it is. This report is also sent to the author directly without the reviewer knowing the contact details of the author;
  • The author sends their revised version of the manuscript to the editor via the platform;
  • The journal editor sends the manuscript to the production team for

3.   Criteria for the reviewers

  • The reviewer checks:
    • whether the manuscript is original;
    • whether the manuscript helps to expand or further research in this subject area
    • whether the content of a research manuscript includes title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, discussion, conclusion, references sections;
    • whether the references are cited within the body text where they are mentioned;
    • checks the manuscript in terms of clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation;
    • checks whether the manuscript needs shortening in specific areas;
    • checks whether the discussion sections should be improved (and makes a suggestion where possible);
    • states which sections need more data;
    • states whether there are interesting findings in certain areas;
    • checks whether any section needs to be enlarged (and makes suggestions where possible);
    • checks whether the English language level of the manuscript is sufficient;
    • suggests proofreading of the manuscript by a professional if necessary;
    • checks whether some sentences require more

4.   Recommendation to the publisher

The reviewer recommends the manuscript to the publisher:

  • to accept and publish it as it is;
  • to accept and publish it with minor revision;
  • to accept and publish it with major revision;
  • to reject it.


5.   Publication of the Reviewed paper

  • The reviewer makes direct comments on the manuscript using markups in Microsoft Word and sends this version via the platform;
  • The reviewed version of the document reaches the author for revision;
  • The editor receives the reviewer’s suggestion at the same time with the author;
  • The author receives this version and considers accepting and adapting them by tracking the markups given by the reviewer;
  • The author then sends their final revised version through the online platform;
  • The editor receives the revised version and considers sending it to the production team for

Journal Manager