Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team before external peer review. This stage evaluates whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal's Focus and Scope, sufficiently complete for evaluation, and prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines.

A manuscript may be returned to the authors for technical correction or may be declined at this stage when it is clearly outside the journal's scope or unsuitable for further editorial consideration.

Manuscripts that proceed beyond initial screening are evaluated using a double-blind peer-review model. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

Authors are responsible for preparing manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymous review and should remove information that could unnecessarily reveal their identities during the review process.

Each manuscript proceeding to external review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise.

Reviewers are selected with consideration of their subject expertise, scholarly experience, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript. Editors should also consider potential competing interests when selecting reviewers.

When reviewer assessments differ substantially or additional specialist evaluation is necessary, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

Information obtained through peer review must be handled confidentially. Requirements concerning the use of artificial intelligence or external automated tools during review are governed by the journal's separate AI Ethics and Procedure.

Reviewers are asked to provide an independent and constructive assessment of the manuscript. Depending on the nature of the study, evaluation may consider:

• Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
• Clarity and significance of the research problem or objective;
• Scholarly contribution and originality;
• Appropriateness and clarity of the research methodology;
• Quality and adequacy of analysis or argumentation;
• Consistency between results, discussion, and conclusions;
• Engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
• Clarity, organization, and academic presentation; and
• Any ethical or research-integrity concerns relevant to editorial assessment.

Reviewers should provide sufficiently clear and constructive comments to assist both the editor's assessment and, where appropriate, the authors' revision of the manuscript.

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to the editor. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process but do not constitute the journal's final decision.

Reviewers should disclose any competing interest that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their impartiality. Where an appropriate independent review cannot be provided, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

The editor considers the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses where applicable, and the manuscript's overall suitability for the journal when making an editorial decision.

Editorial outcomes may include:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Decline Submission

A recommendation from a reviewer does not automatically determine the outcome of a manuscript. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the journal's authorized editor.

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response explaining how the reviewers' and editor's comments have been addressed.

Authors may provide a reasoned scholarly response when they do not agree with a particular recommendation. The editor will evaluate the response together with the revised manuscript.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the issues requiring reassessment.

Authors should submit revisions within the deadline stated in the editorial decision. When additional time is required, authors should contact the editorial team before the deadline to request an extension.

A manuscript with an outstanding revision request that has not been resubmitted within three (3) months from the date of the revision decision may be administratively closed if no extension has been requested or approved.

A manuscript closed for this reason will not continue through the existing review process. Any subsequent submission may be treated as a new submission and may undergo a new editorial assessment.

Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly considerations relevant to the manuscript and must not be influenced by commercial, personal, institutional, or other inappropriate interests.

Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose relevant competing interests and to recuse themselves when an independent and impartial assessment cannot reasonably be provided.