Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts and review correspondence must be treated as confidential material and not used for personal advantage.
EDITORIAL QUALITY
Peer Review Process
Editorial screening, independent review, revision and decision-making in a transparent workflow.
Editorial and peer-review pathway
1Administrative checkFile completeness and required metadata
2Editorial screeningScope, novelty, integrity and basic scholarly quality
3Reviewer selectionSubject-relevant independent assessment
4Peer reviewMethods, evidence, interpretation and presentation
5RevisionAuthors respond point-by-point where required
6DecisionEditorial decision based on the complete record
Review principles
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are evaluated for scholarly relevance, methodological adequacy, evidence quality, clarity and ethical integrity. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific and confidential assessments. Editorial decisions remain with the journal and are not purchased through an APC or other payment.
Conflicts of interest
Editors and reviewers should decline or disclose relationships that could reasonably affect impartial assessment.
Editorial outcomes
Possible outcomes include revision, acceptance or rejection. A request for revision is not an acceptance guarantee. Revised manuscripts may be reassessed when substantive scientific or technical issues remain. Authors should respond clearly to each requested change and identify where revisions were made.