Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Model

All research articles, reviews, case reports, and other scholarly submissions undergo editorial screening followed by double-anonymous peer review by at least three independent reviewers. Reviewer and author identities are concealed from one another.

Process

The editor checks scope, completeness, originality, ethical compliance, conflicts of interest, and reporting quality.
At least three reviewers with relevant expertise and no disqualifying conflict are assigned.
Reviewers assess originality, methods, ethics, analysis, interpretation, reporting, references, data support, and significance.
Reviewers recommend accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject. The editor makes the final decision and records the reasons.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers. Acceptance requires sufficient independent evidence that concerns have been addressed.

The usual target is one week to accept an invitation and two weeks to complete a review, but quality and independence take priority over speed.

Independence and Special Cases

Reviewers disclose competing interests and decline when independence cannot be maintained. Manuscripts authored by editors, board members, reviewers, or publisher staff are handled by an independent editor without access by the conflicted person. Special issues follow the same standards; the Editor-in-Chief retains oversight and guest-editor submissions are handled independently.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and are independent of APC payment.