Evaluation Process

1. The journal uses a single-blind peer review method, meaning that reviewers remain anonymous, while authors’ identities are disclosed.

2. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are first reviewed and pre-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief based on the following criteria:
• Alignment with the journal’s scope and subject areas
• Compliance with the journal’s template, ethical guidelines, and publication policies
• Similarity check via iThenticate, with the maximum acceptable similarity index is 25%
• Adherence to the journal’s scientific standards
• Quality of language (clarity of abstract, adequacy of keywords, structured abstract translation, etc.)

3. After the preliminary evaluation, an Area Editor is assigned. For a manuscript to proceed to publication, at least two reviewers must provide a positive (publishable) recommendation. If one reviewer accepts and another rejects, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on all manuscripts, which is binding.

4. Initially, only the abstracts are sent to potential reviewers. Upon acceptance to review, the full manuscript is provided. Reviewers have a maximum of 45 days to complete their evaluations using the journal’s standard review form. Reviewers may give one of the following four recommendations:
• Accept as is (Accepted)
• Accept with minor revisions (subject to verification by the referee or editorial board)
• Major revisions required (re-evaluation is necessary after revisions)
• Reject (Not suitable for publication)

If revisions are requested, the manuscript is returned to the authors for correction. Authors must submit a detailed response report outlining the changes made, along with the revised manuscript. The revised version is then re-evaluated by the original reviewers.