The peer review process in the journal is a multi‑stage workflow designed to ensure accuracy, transparency, and timely editorial decision‑making, in full compliance with the publisher’s standards and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
(https://publicationethics.org).
This process constitutes the cornerstone of academic validation and plays a central role in enhancing the quality of published research.
Step One: Initial Editorial Evaluation (Screening)
Immediately upon submission, each manuscript is reviewed by the editorial team to determine its fundamental suitability for referral to external expert reviewers.
Editors assess the completeness of submission files, compliance with the Author Guidelines, and the alignment of the manuscript’s topic with the journal’s aims and scope.
Manuscript originality is evaluated using Samim Noor (https://www.samimnoor.ir).
Important note: While the journal employs similarity‑checking tools, full responsibility for originality, avoidance of plagiarism, and adherence to ethical standards rests entirely with the authors.
This stage is conducted swiftly and typically takes approximately 14 days. Manuscripts that are poorly written or clearly outside the journal’s scope may be rejected at this stage without external review.
Step Two: External Peer Review (Expert Evaluation)
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening enter the core evaluation stage, namely specialized external peer review.
The Editor‑in‑Chief appoints at least two independent experts, selected on the basis of subject‑matter expertise, scholarly reputation, and absence of conflicts of interest.
To ensure reviewer identity verification, invitations are sent exclusively to institutional or organizational email addresses.
The review process is conducted under a double‑blind model.
Prohibition of generative AI use: Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from uploading all or any part of the manuscript into generative artificial intelligence tools for evaluation purposes, as this constitutes a violation of author confidentiality and intellectual property rights.
Reviewers assess manuscripts with respect to technical soundness, originality, methodological validity, and the robustness of conclusions.
The average duration of the peer review stage is eight (8) weeks.
Step Three: Editorial Decision and Revision
The Editor‑in‑Chief synthesizes the reviewers’ reports and makes the final editorial decision.
Due to the journal’s rigorous editorial filtering, approximately 21% of submitted manuscripts achieve final acceptance.
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a separate document entitled “Response to Reviewers’ Comments”, providing a reasoned, point‑by‑point reply to each comment.
Authors are encouraged to consult the standard response methodology outlined at: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kyfus
Step Four: Post‑Acceptance and Publication
After final acceptance, the manuscript enters the technical editing and typesetting stage. The journal operates under a full open‑access policy, and accepted articles are made freely available to the public immediately upon publication.
Authors have the right to submit a formal appeal against a rejection decision; however, only one appeal per manuscript is generally considered.
Non‑editorial complaints (such as unusual delays) are handled by the publisher in accordance with COPE protocols (https://publicationethics.org).