Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by our Editorial Board, which assesses the manuscript for its alignment with our scope, originality, novelty, sufficiency of experimental data, and adherence to format guidelines. This is the first step to ensure that submissions meet our basic criteria.

Following this initial review, we engage in a Blind Peer Review process, where at least two peer reviewers are assigned to assess the manuscript in depth. It's important to clarify that our journal employs an external peer review process, meaning that the peer reviewers are independent experts from outside our publishing institution. This ensures an impartial and broad evaluation based on the manuscript’s substantial and technical aspects.

The selection of peer reviewers is based on their expertise and experience in research and publication, relevant to the field of the manuscript under review. We allocate two weeks for the peer reviewers to complete their evaluations.

Once reviews are received, the assigned editor decides on the manuscript. If revisions are necessary, the manuscript is returned to the authors with feedback for improvement. This revision process is aimed to be completed within a maximum of one month. Should the decision be for major revision or resubmission, the revised manuscript, once resubmitted by the author(s), is sent back to the initial peer reviewers for re-evaluation.

After this second round of review, the editor makes the final decision on the manuscript, either accepting or rejecting it. Peer reviewers are rated based on their feedback's substantial and technical quality, ensuring a rigorous and fair review process.

.