All submitted manuscripts undergo a structured editorial process designed to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of published research. The editorial workflow is managed by the editorial team and supported by an online submission and peer-review system that facilitates communication, tracking, and documentation throughout the process.
Following submission, manuscripts are checked for completeness and compliance with basic submission requirements. Each submission then undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its suitability for further consideration. Manuscripts that pass this stage may proceed to peer review. In contrast, others may be returned to authors without external review if they are deemed outside the scope of the journal, insufficiently developed, or non-compliant with editorial policies.
Manuscripts selected for peer review are assigned to an appropriate handling editor based on subject relevance and editorial expertise. The handling editor oversees the peer-review process, including the selection and invitation of reviewers, monitoring of review progress, and evaluation of reviewer reports. Automated system notifications support timely communication, while all editorial actions are documented within the submission system.
Based on the outcome of peer review, the handling editor makes a recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized senior editor, taking into account reviewer feedback, editorial judgment, and compliance with the journal’s policies. Editorial decisions are independent and are not influenced by commercial considerations or publication fees.
Authors may track the status of their submissions through the online system and are notified at key stages of the editorial and review process. The editorial workflow may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript, the outcomes of editorial assessment, or the need for revisions.