The peer review process at the journal is a multi‑step workflow designed to ensure accuracy, transparency, and timely editorial decisions in accordance with the publisher's standards and COPE (https://publicationethics.org). This process is the cornerstone of validating academic work and improving the quality of published research.
Step 1: Initial Editorial Evaluation (Screening)
Upon submission, each manuscript is examined by the editorial team to determine its fundamental suitability for sending to expert reviewers.
Screening Criteria: Editors check for completeness of documents, correct formatting (according to the author guidelines), and alignment of the topic with the journal's aims and scope.
Ethical Check and Similarity Detection: The originality of the manuscript is verified using Samim Noor (https://www.samimnoor.ir) or the IranDoc similarity check system (https://tik.irandoc.ac.ir). (Important note: Although the journal uses these tools, the ultimate responsibility for the work's originality, avoidance of plagiarism, and adherence to ethical standards rests entirely with the authors.)
Duration: This stage is rapid, typically taking about 14 days. Manuscripts that are poorly written or fall outside the journal's scope are rejected at this stage.
Step 2: External Review (Expert Judgement)
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening enter the core of the evaluation process: expert peer review.
Reviewer Selection: The Editor‑in‑Chief selects at least two independent experts based on their expertise, scholarly reputation, and absence of conflicts of interest. Invitations are sent only to academic/institutional email addresses to ensure identity authenticity.
Confidentiality and AI: Review is conducted in a double‑blind manner. (Prohibition of AI use: Reviewers and editors are not permitted to upload all or part of a manuscript into generative AI tools for evaluation, as this violates the author's proprietary rights and confidentiality.)
Reviewer Duties: Reviewers assess the manuscript for technical soundness, novelty, validity of the methodology, and robustness of the conclusions. The average review time is 8 weeks.
Step 3: Decision and Revision
The Editor‑in‑Chief consolidates the reviewers' comments and makes the final decision.
Decision Categories: (1) Accept as is: The manuscript is ready for publication. (2) Minor revision: Small corrections needed (formatting, length, minor ambiguities). (3) Major revision: Substantial changes required in methodology, data analysis, or collection of new data. (4) Reject: The manuscript does not meet the necessary standards for publication in the journal.
Acceptance Rate: Due to the rigorous editorial filters, 21% of submitted manuscripts receive final acceptance.
Response Process: If revision is required, the author must submit a file titled "Response to Reviewers" along with the revised version, addressing each comment point‑by‑point with reasoned responses. To learn about the standard way to respond, read this article at the following link: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kyfus
Step 4: After Acceptance and Publication
Upon final acceptance, the manuscript enters the technical editing and typesetting stage. The journal is an open access publication, and articles are made freely available to the public immediately upon publication. Authors have the right to file a formal appeal against a rejection decision. Typically, only one appeal request is considered per manuscript. Non‑editorial complaints (e.g., unusual delays) are also pursued by the publisher according to COPE protocols (https://publicationethics.org)