Peer Review Process

The Journal has a two-stage review process.

1. Editorial Review: An initial review by the section editors or editor-in-chief. The result is either a decision to send the article for peer review or an editorial rejection.
2. Peer Review: If the paper passes editorial review, it is assigned to two members of the journal’s review panel. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and alignment with the article’s focus.

The Journal uses a single-blind review process — reviewers know the authors’ identity, but authors do not know the reviewers. No direct communication is allowed between reviewers and authors.

Articles are reviewed against the following criteria:

• Contribution to advancing knowledge of the subject
• Quality of engagement with relevant literature
• Clarity of research and development goals
• Clarity and justification of methodology
• Quality of data, analysis, and interpretation of results
• Implications for further research, theory, practice, or policy
• Quality of writing (structure, style, clarity of expression)

The editor will inform review results within 30–90 days of submission. Before peer review, articles undergo a plagiarism check using Turnitin. Articles with similarity above 25% will be rejected.

Following the peer review, accepted articles will be available online as Open Access (free download). Revisions requested by reviewers must be returned within 21 days, otherwise they will be treated as new submissions.

All published articles are made available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) license, ensuring permanent free access for everyone.