Publication Ethics demo
Editorial Process
Peer Review Process and Confidentiality
The journal employs a rigorous single-blind peer-review process to ensure high standards of academic quality and integrity.
Initial Screening
Following submission, each manuscript is screened by the editorial office to ensure compliance with submission guidelines, ethical requirements, and journal scope. Plagiarism and similarity checks are conducted at this stage. Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, insufficiently original, of poor scientific quality, or contain poor grammar or English language may be desk-rejected. Authors are usually notified of desk decisions within 7 calendar days of receipt.
Anonymity and Reviewer Selection
In the single-blind model, reviewers remain anonymous to authors, but reviewers are aware of author names and affiliations. Manuscripts that pass initial checks are assigned to a handling editor and typically reviewed by two or more independent experts with recognized expertise. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, experience, prior review performance, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Expert Evaluation
Reviewers assess originality, methodology, data quality, significance of findings, and adherence to ethical and scientific standards. Their reports include specific comments and constructive recommendations to guide the editorial decision.
Editorial Oversight
The Editor-in-Chief carefully considers the reviewers comments before making the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.
Manuscript Decision Categories
Based on reviewer reports, decisions typically fall into one of the following:
- Accept: Suitable for publication without further changes.
- Accept with minor revisions: Requires limited changes to improve clarity, presentation, or minor content issues before acceptance.
- Major revisions required: Requires substantial changes to resolve significant methodological, analytical, or interpretive issues identified by reviewers.
- Reject: Does not meet the journal’s standards of originality, quality, or scope.
Review Timeline
- Desk/Initial screening: Typically within 7 calendar days.
- First full editorial decision (after peer review): Typically within 4–6 weeks of submission.
- Minor revision resubmission: Recommended within 14 calendar days of decision.
- Major revision resubmission: Recommended within 21–28 calendar days of decision (extensions may be granted upon request).
Production process
Upon acceptance, manuscripts are copyedited and typeset with care to ensure conformity with the journal’s formatting and style standards.
- Copyediting: A copyeditor thoroughly reviews your manuscript for grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity, consistency, and adherence to the journal's style guide.
- Typesetting: Your article is formatted according to the journal's layout specifications for professional presentation.
- Proofs: Following copyediting and typesetting, the corresponding author will receive the final PDF proof within 8–12 calendar days of acceptance and should return corrections within 3–5 business days to facilitate timely publication. At this stage, only minor typographical or factual corrections are permitted to preserve the integrity of the peer-reviewed record.
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or use content prior to publication. Reviewers and editors are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before handling a manuscript.
Article Withdrawal (Pre-Publication)
Article withdrawal refers to the formal removal of a manuscript from the editorial or publication process prior to its official publication. Withdrawal is distinct from retraction, which applies only to published articles; once published, an article may generally be retracted but not withdrawn.
Stages of Withdrawal
Pre-Acceptance: Authors may request to withdraw their manuscript at any time prior to formal editorial acceptance. This requires a written request submitted to the Editorial Office, signed or confirmed by all co-authors, clearly stating the reason(s) for withdrawal.
Post-Acceptance: Withdrawal of a manuscript after formal acceptance but prior to publication is strongly discouraged. At this stage, significant editorial and production resources have already been invested. Such requests will only be considered under extraordinary circumstances and are subject to the final approval of the Editor-in-Chief.
Permissible Grounds for Withdrawal
Withdrawal is permitted only when a valid scientific or ethical justification exists, such as:
- Discovery of serious methodological errors that invalidate the study’s findings or conclusions
- Ethical violations (e.g., missing IRB/ethics approval, plagiarism, or consent issues)
- Duplicate or multiple submissions discovered
- Legal or copyright disputes or unresolved authorship conflicts
Unacceptable Grounds for Withdrawal
The journal reserves the right to reject withdrawal requests deemed unethical or administratively invalid. Unacceptable reasons include, but are not limited to:
- Dissatisfaction with peer-review comments, editorial decisions, or required revisions
- Withdrawal of a manuscript for the purpose of submission to another or higher-impact journal after it has already benefited from the journal’s peer review or editorial processes
- Dissatisfaction with the publication timeline or perceived delays in the editorial or production process
- Desire to conduct further experiments or incorporate additional data; such additions should be managed through the formal revision process and extension requests
- Failure to meet financial obligations, such as Article Processing Charges (APCs), once the manuscript has been accepted for publication
