Submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team to determine their relevance to the journal's Focus & Scope and their basic conformity with the journal's submission and manuscript preparation requirements. Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope or unsuitable for further consideration may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected according to their expertise and ability to evaluate the subject matter and methodology of the manuscript.

Reviewers should be independent of the authors and should not have competing interests that could reasonably affect the impartiality of their evaluation. If the reviewer assessments differ substantially or additional specialist expertise is required, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.

The journal uses a double-blind review model. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the peer-review process.

Manuscripts and associated review materials are treated as confidential scholarly communications. Reviewers are expected to conduct their assessments independently and objectively and to inform the editor if circumstances arise that may prevent an impartial review.

Reviewers assess the scholarly quality and suitability of the manuscript and provide recommendations to the editor. Assessment may consider the following aspects:

After the required reviewer reports have been received, the responsible editor evaluates the reports together with the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor on behalf of the journal.

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response addressing the reviewer and editor comments. Authors should explain the changes made and provide a reasoned response where a suggested change has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the extent of the revisions and the issues identified during the previous review round. A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

Authors are expected to submit revisions within the deadline stated in the editorial decision. If additional time is required, the corresponding author should contact the editorial office before the deadline or while the revision remains active.

A manuscript for which a revision has been requested but no revised version or extension request is received within three (3) months from the date of the revision request may be administratively closed and declined as inactive. A manuscript closed for inactivity will not automatically continue to the next editorial stage.