Manuscripts submitted to the journal's editorial workplace will go through a double anonymized peer-review process wherein both authors and reviewers are anonymous to every difference. Each submission might be reviewed by using at least two external, independent peer reviewers who are specialists in their fields to ensure an unbiased assessment technique.

Submissions will first go through a technical evaluation technique through which the editorial office group of workers will make sure that the manuscript is organized and submitted according to the magazine’s suggestions. Submissions that do not comply with the magazine’s tips could be again to the filing authors with technical correction requests.

Submissions that conform to the journal’s suggestions can be assigned to the Editor in Chief who will assess every submission’s suitability to the journal in phrases of scope and best. Submissions that are not appropriate for the magazine can be rejected at this degree.

For papers that might be suitable for the journal, the editor-in-chief will work with Section Editors who will recruit reviewers for the manuscript. Once assigned, Section Editors can determine whether to reject a manuscript, hold with the peer evaluation method, or request revisions earlier than in addition to peer evaluation

Section editors will publish their suggestions which are based totally on reviews submitted with the aid of the reviewers to the Editor in Chief. Revised manuscripts can be reassessed through the Section Editors who will aim to paintings with the authentic reviewers to make a new recommendation.

The Editor in Chief is the very last authority in the choice-making manner for all submissions.

In the event of delays, authors may be knowledgeable of the purpose for the postponement and given the possibility to withdraw their manuscript.

Once the peer-overview method is finished, the authors will receive anonymous peer-evaluate reports along with the editorial choice on their manuscript. Peer-overview reports will now not be published publicly in any medium. The submitted material is considered personal and should not be used in any way till after its book. If it's miles suspected that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s thoughts or statistics, the Editorial Board will cope with the matter according to the relevant COPE’s guideline.

Authors can recommend peer-reviewers during submission. The handling editor is the sole authority to decide whether or not recommended peer-reviewers will be invited to evaluate the manuscript.

Peer reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers and These guidelines provide a framework for reviewers to follow in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The Editorial Board follows COPE’s relevant flowchart to minimize peer review manipulation. If there is suspicion of peer review manipulation after publication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate flowchart of COPE.

TPotential peer reviewers must tell the Editor of any possible conflicts of hobby earlier than accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Informing the editor of any potential conflicts of hobby allows them to make an informed selection approximately whether or no longer to invite the capacity reviewer to participate in the overview process. It also helps to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review procedure.

Communications between Editors and peer reviewers include personal records that must no longer be shared with third parties.

The journal's editorial will recruit external editors to handle with peer review processes of manuscripts submitted by means of members of the editorial board.

If a piece of writing's peer evaluation is an exception to the journal’s usual coverage, the sort of assessment it acquired will be displayed in the article to ensure the transparency and accountability of the overview system.