Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo academic evaluation and peer review in accordance with the journal's established procedures.

Research papers are evaluated by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the submitted work. The review process considers the originality, scientific quality, methodological soundness, clarity of results and conclusions, and compliance with academic standards.

Submission of a paper does not guarantee publication. Publication decisions are based on the outcome of the peer-review process and the extent to which the submitted work meets the journal's requirements.

 

Workflow Overview

Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review Tree Structure

 
STEP 1

Manuscript Submission

The corresponding author submits the research manuscript via the journal’s online Open Journal Systems (OJS) portal.

Author Action: May suggest preferred/non-preferred reviewers in the cover letter with valid identifiers (ORCID, Scopus ID, or institutional email).
 
STEP 2

Editorial Pre-Screening & Scope Check

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor performs an initial desk assessment:

  • Alignment with scientific, engineering, and humanitarian scopes.
  • Assessment of formatting, completeness, ethical compliance, and similarity reports.
Outcomes: Desk Reject | Return for Formatting | Pass to Review
 
STEP 3

Double-Blind Reviewer Assignment

The editor assigns 2 to 3 independent expert reviewers in the subject area:

  • Selected based on expertise, absence of COI, and scholarly record.
  • Author and reviewer identities are mutually anonymized.
 
STEP 4

Peer Review Evaluation

Assigned experts evaluate the manuscript across key criteria:

  • Methodology soundness, data integrity, and validity.
  • Originality and research contribution.
  • Clarity, structural organization, and ethical rigor.
Policy Note: Reviewers are prohibited from using AI or AI-assisted tools during review.
 
STEP 5

Reviewer Feedback & Recommendation

Reviewers submit detailed evaluations alongside 1 of 4 recommendations:

Accept (as-is)
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
 
STEP 6

Editorial Decision & Author Revision

Editorial Board Decision: Evaluates reviewer feedback and issues formal decision.

Author Resubmission: Address comments point-by-point and resubmit within deadline.

 
STEP 7

Final Acceptance & Production

Upon meeting all scholarly standards, final acceptance is confirmed.

  • Typesetting, copyediting & proofreading.
  • DOI assignment & Crossref registration.
  • Immediate open-access online publication.