Peer Review Process

Every submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the Editorial Office and/or the assigned Editor before external peer review.

• conformity with the journal's Aims, Focus and Scope;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• relevance to contemporary social and political issues;
• clarity of research objectives and questions;
• appropriateness of the theoretical framework and methodology;
• quality of academic writing and presentation;
• completeness and relevance of references;
• compliance with the Author Guidelines;
• research ethics and disclosure requirements, where applicable; and
• textual similarity and possible publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, contain serious methodological deficiencies, fail to meet minimum academic standards, or raise substantial ethical concerns may be rejected at this stage without external review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant research area.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and independence from the authors.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may request additional opinions or conduct further editorial assessment.

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria.

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective and constructive evaluations;
• maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts;
• identify significant academic strengths and weaknesses;
• support their recommendations with clear reasoning;
• identify relevant literature that has not been cited;
• disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest;
• report suspected plagiarism or research misconduct to the Editor; and
• complete reviews within the agreed timeframe whenever possible.

Following peer review, the Editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations alongside the manuscript's originality, methodological rigor, relevance, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Editor.

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a structured response to reviewers.

The response should explain how each comment has been addressed. Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they may provide a reasoned academic explanation.

Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the deadline communicated by the Editorial Office. Extensions may be considered upon a reasonable request.

The journal aims to conduct the editorial and peer-review process efficiently without compromising academic quality.

The processing time may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions required, and the responsiveness of authors.

The journal will communicate editorial decisions and relevant reviewer comments through the official OJS platform and/or registered email address.

Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential academic documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished information or use it for personal or professional advantage.

Any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must be disclosed. Where impartiality may be compromised, the relevant Editor or reviewer must withdraw from the evaluation.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and ethical compliance.

Publication fees, financial considerations, institutional affiliation, nationality, political perspective, or personal relationships must not determine editorial outcomes.