All manuscripts undergo a comprehensive double-blind peer review system. The journal maintains strict anonymity between authors and reviewers—neither party knows the other's identity. All identifying information such as names and institutional affiliations is removed from manuscripts during review.

Each submission is typically evaluated by two to three expert reviewers who assess whether the manuscript:

• Is scientifically sound and coherent
• Contains original work rather than duplicating existing publications
• Presents information clearly and comprehensibly
• Makes interesting and significant contributions to the field

Editors make decisions based on these expert evaluations and may consult with Editorial Board members when necessary.

Following review, editors will reach one of three decisions:

1. Accept for publication (with or without editorial revisions)
2. Request revisions to address specific reviewer concerns
3. Reject the submission (typically due to lack of originality, insufficient conceptual advancement, or significant technical/interpretational issues)

Any modifications to the original manuscript will be clearly indicated for author review. The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit all aspects of style, format, and clarity. Manuscripts containing excessive errors in spelling, punctuation, or other elements may be returned for revision before resubmission or rejected entirely.