Our journal adheres to a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality and uphold the highest standards of academic integrity. In this process:

1. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
2. Reviewers' identities remain anonymous to authors.

This rigorous system ensures unbiased evaluation and guarantees that all manuscripts meet the journal's quality standards before publication.

Steps of the Review Process:

1. Submission: Authors are required to submit manuscripts following the journal's prescribed format to facilitate a smoother and faster review process.
2. Initial Screening: The editorial team evaluates submissions for scope alignment, originality, and adherence to submission guidelines. Non-compliant manuscripts may be returned to authors for revisions.
3. Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts passing the initial screening are sent to acknowledged experts in the relevant field for review.
4. Peer Review: Reviewers critically assess the manuscript's content, originality, methodology, and overall quality. They provide constructive feedback and recommendations regarding:
   • Acceptance
   • Minor revisions
   • Major revisions
   • Rejection
5. Final Decision: The Chief Editor considers reviewers' comments and recommendations to make the final publication decision. Authors are notified promptly about the outcome, along with detailed feedback for necessary revisions.

Timeline:
The review process typically takes 1-2 weeks, depending on factors like manuscript length, research domain, clarity of presentation, and complexity of the methodology.

We are committed to maintaining a swift, fair, and transparent review process, ensuring high-quality publications that contribute meaningfully to the field.