Manuscripts submitted to this journal will undergo a double-blind peer review process by at least one reviewer. This process aims to ensure the validity and relevance of the journal. Reviewers will evaluate the manuscripts based on their suitability for the journal, contribution to theory and practice, conceptual adequacy, and writing style. If the reviewers do not recommend publication or if the manuscript does not meet the required quality standards, it will be promptly returned to the authors. Authors will receive an email advising them of any revisions needed for potential acceptance. Throughout the review process, the identities of authors and reviewers will remain anonymous to each other.

Initially, the editorial secretariat will screen the manuscript to determine its suitability. The manuscript will then be assigned to at least one independent reviewer who possesses the relevant expertise and has no conflict of interest. All submissions will undergo a plagiarism check, and any allegations of research misconduct will be thoroughly investigated. The Editorial Board has the right to reject a manuscript without
peer review if it is deemed to be outside the scope of the journal, poorly written or formatted, or lacking in significance.

Reviewers will be chosen based on their expertise from the journal’s reviewer database. If a manuscript meets the journal’s quality standards and aligns with its aims and scope, it will be sent to at least one reviewer. Furthermore, the Editor may also select reviewers from outside the database and may consider the authors’ suggestions, although these recommendations may or may not be utilised.

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to peer review requests, especially if they are unable to carry out the review, in order to prevent unnecessary delays. They will assess manuscripts for originality, significance, relevance to the subject, coverage of existing literature, presentation of methodology, results, interpretation, and overall organization. Reviewers will provide anonymous comments for the author and confidential feedback for the Editor.

In cases of conflicting reports, further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewers, and authors are encouraged to make necessary corrections for potential publication. They will be informed of the Editor’s final decision.