Peer review policy

Peer review policy

The journal applies a strict evaluation process. From evaluation to publication, it adheres to the following standards:

Evaluation date: 30 days

Correction date: 15 days

Publication date: 180 days

Annual issues: 02

Acceptance rate: 60%

Rejection rate: 40%

The journal applies the following evaluation standards:

=>Double-blind peer review:   Authors and readers do not know each other’s identities; the writer knows the identities of the authors and readers. As a general rule, the author must submit two files, one of which is anonymized. Reviewers review the article anonymously: reviewers are prohibited from making public comments on the submitted text.

=> Contribution of peer review:
peer review helps the editor and editorial board make editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author can also help the author improve the article.

=> Speed:
any selected referee who does not feel qualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review must inform the editor and apologize for the review process.

=> Confidentiality:
Manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown or discussed with other people, except with the permission of the editor.

=> Standards of objectivity:
the exams must be conducted objectively. There will be no personal criticism of the author. Evaluators must clearly express their point of view with supporting arguments.

=> Source recognition:
Reviewers must identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that has already been reported elsewhere must be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer shall also draw the attention of the editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published article with which he has personal knowledge.

=> Confidentiality:
privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes.

=> Conflict of interest:
reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the articles.