Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review System

Each manuscript is reviewed through a double-blind peer review system. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors throughout the review process.

All communication concerning the review results is conducted through the OJS editorial system. Authors and reviewers do not communicate directly during the review process.

Two Independent Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by two reviewers who work independently and whose areas of assessment complement one another. Each reviewer conducts the evaluation and prepares the review report independently, without coordinating with, referring to, or using the assessment of the other reviewer as the basis for their evaluation.

This approach enables the manuscript to receive a more comprehensive assessment of its scholarly substance, methodology, consistency of argumentation, quality of analysis, and presentation of the scholarly work.

Review Process

The review is conducted systematically on the substance and components of the manuscript using the evaluation instruments established by the journal. Reviewers provide structured assessments as well as critical and constructive comments on aspects requiring revision, clarification, stronger argumentation, or further improvement.

Upon completing the review, each reviewer independently submits a review report and recommendation through the OJS editorial system. These recommendations serve as scholarly considerations in the editorial decision-making process.

Review Recommendations

Based on the review, each reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:

• Manuscript Accepted without Revision;
• Minor Revision;
• Major Revision; or
• Manuscript Rejected.

Reviewer recommendations constitute scholarly considerations within the editorial process and do not, by themselves, constitute the final decision on the manuscript.

Revision and Follow-Up on Review Results

For each round of review that requires revision, authors have a maximum of 45 days from the communication of the revision request to upload the revised manuscript through the designated section in OJS. A subsequent review round with a further revision request begins a new 45-day period.

The revision must demonstrate that each reviewer comment and recommendation has been addressed and/or provided with an adequate scholarly clarification. The revised manuscript is subsequently assessed based on the adequacy of the revisions and the authors' responses to the review results before the editorial process proceeds.

Editorial Decision

The final decision on the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering the reports and recommendations of both reviewers and the authors' responses. When the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest and withdraws from handling the manuscript, the Managing Editor makes the final decision. The decision is communicated to the authors through OJS.

The final decision remains an editorial responsibility and is not determined automatically by the recommendation of either reviewer.

Special Issue

Articles published in a special issue follow the same peer review process as articles published in regular issues. Each manuscript remains subject to double-blind peer review involving two independent reviewers and follows the same standards for review, revision, and editorial decision-making.