Review Process

Peer Review Process

Overview of our double-blind evaluation procedure, integrity safeguards, and editorial standards.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions are initially assessed by the editorial office for scope suitability, originality, basic methodological soundness, completeness of files (including anonymized manuscript), and compliance with journal policies and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be declined without external review.

Estimated duration: 2–3 weeks.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts proceed to double-blind peer review. Each submission is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout the review process. Where reports diverge substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.

Estimated duration: 6–10 weeks.

3. Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality, significance, and contribution to scholarship
  • Theoretical framing and conceptual clarity
  • Methodological rigor and transparency of empirical strategy
  • Quality of evidence, interpretation, and robustness
  • Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript
  • Policy relevance and international/comparative significance where applicable
  • Compliance with ethical research and publication standards

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment, decisions may include:

  • Accept (with or without minor revisions)
  • Major Revisions Required (revise and resubmit)
  • Reject

Estimated duration for decision communication: 1–2 weeks.

5. Research Integrity & Publication Ethics

The journal is committed to research integrity and publication ethics. We follow recognized good-practice principles (e.g., COPE-aligned standards) regarding authorship, conflicts of interest, citation integrity, and corrections/retractions when necessary.

  • Plagiarism screening: Submissions may be screened using plagiarism-detection software prior to and/or during review.
  • Misconduct handling: Allegations of plagiarism, fabricated/falsified data, duplicate submission, or unethical research will be investigated and may lead to rejection, retraction, or notification of relevant institutions.
  • Conflicts of interest: Editors and reviewers must declare potential conflicts and will be recused when appropriate.

6. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a clear written justification addressing specific reviewer/editorial points. The Editor-in-Chief (or a designated senior editor not involved in the original decision, where feasible) will review the appeal. The decision on appeals is final.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share or use submitted materials for any purpose other than the review.

8. Use of AI in Peer Review

Strict Prohibition: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, datasets, or confidential materials to generative AI tools or external platforms. If AI is used solely for language polishing or formatting of reviewer comments (without sharing confidential content), such use must be disclosed to the editorial office upon request.

9. Review Timeline & Publication Schedule

  • Publication frequency: Semiannual (two issues per year)
  • Submission model: Rolling submission
  • Initial editorial screening: 2–3 weeks
  • Double-blind peer review: 6–10 weeks
  • Author revision period: 2–4 weeks (author-dependent)
  • Final editorial decision: 1–2 weeks
  • Production and online publication: 2–3 weeks
  • Total estimated time from submission to online publication: 4–6 months

Accepted articles may be published online ahead of issue compilation. All accepted manuscripts are subsequently assigned to the next scheduled semiannual issue. Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.