Publication Guidelines 

These guidelines are fully aligned with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct. For more detailed information, please visit: COPE Publication Ethics.

Section A: Publication and Authorship

  1. Submission of Paper

    The corresponding or submitting author must submit the manuscript to the journal, typically through an online submission system such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. In some cases, journals may accept submissions via email.

  2. Editorial Office Assessment

    The editorial office reviews the manuscript's structure and formatting to ensure compliance with the journal’s Author Guidelines. This initial check verifies the presence of required sections and adherence to stylistic standards but does not evaluate the scientific quality of the paper.

  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

    The EIC assesses whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal and evaluates its originality and significance. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to peer review.

  4. Assignment of an Associate Editor (AE)

    If applicable, the EIC assigns an Associate Editor to handle the peer review process for the manuscript.

  5. Invitation to Reviewers

    The handling editor invites potential reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Invitations are sent until the required number of reviewers (typically two) accept the invitation to review the manuscript.

  6. Response to Invitations

    Prospective reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers who decline may suggest alternative reviewers.

  7. Conducting the Review

    Reviewers thoroughly read the manuscript multiple times. The initial reading forms an overall impression, and if significant issues are identified, the reviewer may recommend rejection without further analysis. Otherwise, reviewers provide a detailed, point-by-point evaluation and submit their recommendations, which may include acceptance, conditional acceptance with revisions, or rejection.

  8. Evaluation of Reviews by the Journal

    The handling editor reviews all submitted evaluations to make an informed decision. In cases where reviews are conflicting, an additional reviewer may be consulted to provide further insight.

  9. Communication of the Decision

    The editor communicates the decision to the authors via email, including relevant comments from the reviewers. The anonymity of reviewers is maintained according to the journal’s peer review policy.

  10. Next Steps

    • Acceptance: The manuscript proceeds to the production phase.
    • Rejection or Revision: If rejected or if revisions are required, the editor provides constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscript. Reviewers are notified of the outcome of their review. For revisions, unless reviewers opt out, they may be asked to review the updated manuscript, especially if major changes are required.

Section B: Authors' Responsibilities

  • Original Work: Authors must confirm that their manuscript is their original work.

  • No Prior Publication: Authors must certify that the manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

  • Participation in Peer Review: Authors are expected to engage constructively in the peer review process.

  • Corrections and Retractions: Authors must promptly provide corrections or retractions if errors are identified in their published work.

  • Significant Contribution: All authors listed must have made significant contributions to the research and the manuscript.

  • Authenticity of Data: Authors must ensure that all data presented in the manuscript are accurate and authentic.

  • Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the research or its interpretation.

  • Proper Citation: Authors must accurately cite all sources and references used in their manuscript.

  • Error Reporting: Authors must notify the editors of any errors discovered post-publication.

Section C: Reviewers' Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscript information as confidential and privileged.

  • Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted impartially without personal bias or criticism of the authors.

  • Clarity and Support: Reviewers should articulate their feedback clearly, providing supporting arguments for their assessments.

  • Comprehensive Review: Reviewers should identify relevant literature that the authors may have overlooked and suggest pertinent references.

  • Detection of Plagiarism: Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief to any substantial similarities or overlaps with other published works.

  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must refrain from reviewing manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest, whether competitive, collaborative, or otherwise, with the authors or the research.

Section D: Editors' Responsibilities

  • Decision Authority: Editors hold the sole authority to accept or reject manuscripts.

  • Quality Assurance: Editors are responsible for maintaining the overall quality and integrity of the publication.

  • Author and Reader Consideration: Editors should prioritize the needs of both authors and readers to enhance the publication’s value.

  • Academic Integrity: Editors must ensure that all published research adheres to internationally recognized ethical standards.

  • Error Correction: Editors should issue corrections or errata when necessary to maintain the accuracy of the publication.

  • Transparency in Funding: Editors must have a clear understanding of the research funding sources to prevent conflicts of interest.

  • Decision Basis: Editorial decisions should be based exclusively on the manuscript's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

  • Consistency in Decisions: Editors should maintain consistency in their decisions and should not overturn previous editorial decisions without substantial justification.

  • Reviewer Anonymity: Editors must protect the anonymity of reviewers to preserve the integrity of the peer review process.

  • Misconduct Handling: Editors are responsible for addressing any suspected misconduct, ensuring that proper investigations are conducted and resolutions are sought.

  • Conflict of Interest Prevention: Editors must avoid any conflicts of interest among staff, authors, reviewers, and board members to maintain impartiality.