The purpose of peer review is to assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with the author it may also assist the author in improving the manuscript. In order to ensure the highest scholarly standard, all research articles published in this journal are subjected to rigorous peer-review process which entails initial editor screening and double-blind refereeing by no less than two referees. 

In the double-blind peer review procedure, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Editors will assign at least two independent and objective reviewers to each paper. Reviewers will give a recommendation according to the following options: Accept – No revision needed, Accept – Minor revision needed, Major revisions needed, Reject – Decline the publication of a paper. The peer review process is normally completed within six month.

The choice of reviewers is at the Editor’s discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.

All of the reviewers of a manuscript act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor-in-Chief may assign additional reviewers.

During the review process Editor-in-Chief may require authors to provide additional information if they are necessary for the evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript. These materials shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.