1 INITIAL SCREENING

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial screening conducted by the editorial office. This preliminary assessment serves as a quality control mechanism to verify that the submission meets the basic requirements of the journal before being forwarded to external reviewers. The editorial team examines the manuscript for compliance with formatting guidelines as specified in the author instructions, including proper structure with abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and references. The document is also subjected to plagiarism detection software to ensure originality, with acceptable similarity indices typically below 15 percent. Furthermore, the editorial board assesses whether the research topic falls within the journal's scope and whether the study makes a meaningful contribution to contemporary multidisciplinary research.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these fundamental criteria are returned to authors with constructive feedback, often within 48 to 72 hours of submission. This desk rejection saves valuable time for both authors and reviewers, allowing authors to address deficiencies before resubmission. The screening process also verifies that all required supplementary materials, such as data sets, ethical approval certificates, and conflict of interest statements, have been properly submitted. Only manuscripts that successfully pass this initial screening phase proceed to the reviewer assignment stage.

2 Reviewer Assignment

Following successful initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to subject matter experts who possess specialized knowledge in the relevant research domain. The editorial board maintains an extensive database of qualified reviewers representing diverse academic disciplines and geographic regions. For each manuscript, the editor-in-chief or associate editor identifies potential reviewers based on their publication record, research expertise, and previous review quality. Typically, two to three independent reviewers are selected to ensure comprehensive evaluation from multiple perspectives. The selection process carefully considers potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that reviewers have no personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors.

Selected reviewers receive formal invitations through the journal's manuscript management system, which includes the manuscript title, abstract, and keywords without revealing author identities. Reviewers are provided with clear instructions regarding evaluation criteria, expected timeline for completion, and ethical guidelines for confidentiality. Most reviewers are given a period of three to four weeks to complete their assessment, though this timeline may vary depending on manuscript complexity and length. If a reviewer declines the invitation due to time constraints or potential conflicts, alternative reviewers are promptly identified to maintain the review schedule. The anonymity of all parties is strictly maintained throughout this process, with the editorial office serving as the sole intermediary between authors and reviewers.

3 DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW

The double-blind review represents the core of the evaluation process, where expert reviewers conduct a thorough and critical assessment of the manuscript without knowledge of author identities or institutional affiliations. Reviewers examine multiple dimensions of the research, beginning with the originality and significance of the contribution. They assess whether the research addresses a genuine gap in existing literature and whether the findings advance knowledge in the field. The methodology undergoes rigorous scrutiny to verify that research design, data collection procedures, sampling techniques, and analytical methods are appropriate and scientifically sound. Reviewers evaluate the clarity and organization of the manuscript, ensuring that the argument flows logically and that results are presented comprehensively with appropriate statistical analyses or qualitative interpretations.

Reviewers also examine the accuracy and currency of the literature review, the appropriateness of citations, the validity of conclusions drawn from the data, and the overall contribution to multidisciplinary research. They provide detailed comments on strengths and weaknesses, suggest improvements for methodology or presentation, and identify any ethical concerns or potential biases. Based on their comprehensive evaluation, reviewers make one of four recommendations to the editor. They may recommend acceptance if the manuscript meets all quality standards and requires no significant changes. Minor revision recommendations indicate that the manuscript is fundamentally sound but needs small improvements in presentation, additional clarification, or minor

4 Author Revision

When reviewers recommend revision rather than outright acceptance or rejection, the editorial office compiles all reviewer comments and transmits them to the corresponding author through the manuscript management system. These comments remain anonymous, preserving the double-blind nature of the review process. Authors receive detailed feedback that typically includes specific concerns about methodology, requests for additional analyses, suggestions for improving clarity and organization, recommendations for expanding or refining the literature review, and guidance on strengthening the discussion and conclusions. The editorial decision letter synthesizes reviewer recommendations and provides clear direction regarding the nature and extent of revisions required.

Authors are expected to carefully address each reviewer comment in a comprehensive point-by-point response document. This response should explicitly state how each concern has been addressed, indicate where changes have been made in the revised manuscript, and provide justification when authors disagree with specific reviewer suggestions. The revised manuscript itself should be submitted with tracked changes or with modified text highlighted to facilitate editor and reviewer assessment of the revisions. Authors typically receive four to six weeks to complete major revisions and two to three weeks for minor revisions, though extensions may be granted for legitimate reasons. The resubmitted manuscript, along with the response letter and tracked changes document, undergoes another round of review to verify that concerns have been adequately addressed.

5 Editorial Decision

After authors submit their revised manuscript, the editor-in-chief or handling editor makes the final determination regarding publication. This decision is informed by multiple sources of evidence, including the original reviewer reports, the quality and comprehensiveness of author responses to reviewer concerns, the extent of improvements made in the revised manuscript, and potentially additional reviewer comments on the revision. The editor may send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, particularly in cases of major revision where substantial changes were requested. Alternatively, if revisions were minor and the author response clearly demonstrates that all concerns have been addressed, the editor may make a decision without additional external review.

The editorial decision process balances reviewer recommendations with the editor's own expertise and judgment about the manuscript's contribution to the field. Editors consider the consistency of reviewer opinions, weighing areas of agreement and disagreement among multiple reviewers. When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek additional expert opinion or carefully evaluate the validity of different perspectives. The final decision letter communicates the outcome clearly to authors, providing constructive feedback even when the decision is rejection. For accepted manuscripts, the letter outlines any final minor corrections needed before publication. For rejected manuscripts, the letter explains the rationale and may suggest alternative journals or approaches for future submission. This transparent communication ensures that authors understand the basis for editorial decisions and can learn from the review process regardless of the outcome.