For Reviewers

1. Peer Review Process

The journal follows a double-blind peer review system to ensure impartiality and high-quality academic standards. Each submission undergoes an initial assessment by the Board of Chairs to determine its suitability for the journal's aims, scope, and topics. If deemed appropriate, the paper is then sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

The primary goals of the peer review process are to:

• Evaluate the scientific quality and originality of submissions
• Ensure that all published research meets the highest ethical and academic standards
• Provide constructive feedback to authors for improving their work

The review process is managed through the EasyChair system, ensuring anonymity for both authors and reviewers.

2. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess submissions based on the following criteria:

• Relevance — the paper aligns with the conference theme and journal scope
• Clarity of Objectives — research questions and objectives are clearly defined
• Quality of Writing — well-written, with a logical flow and coherence
• Audience Engagement — the research has potential to attract readers and contribute to the field
• Organisation and Structure — the manuscript follows a logical sequence
• Literature Review — the paper engages with relevant and up-to-date scholarly sources
• Methodology (if applicable) — research methods are appropriate and well-documented
• Data Analysis (if applicable) — the analytical approach is sound and justified
• Evidence and Arguments — claims are supported by sufficient and relevant evidence
• Significance — the paper offers a meaningful contribution to the academic community

3. Review Procedure

All reviews are conducted through the EasyChair system, ensuring anonymity and unbiased evaluations. Authors' identities remain undisclosed to reviewers, and vice versa. Only the editorial team has access to author details for paper assignment purposes.

The review process follows these steps:

1. Paper Assignment
   Papers are assigned to reviewers based on expertise while avoiding conflicts of interest.
2. Evaluation and Feedback
   Reviewers assess the paper based on the criteria listed above and provide structured feedback.
3. Decision Making — four possible outcomes:

   Accepted without revisions (rare case) Accepted with minor revisions Conditionally accepted (requires significant revisions) Rejected
4. Final Submission
   If revisions are required, authors must submit an updated version within 2–3 days.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback
• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript
• Complete reviews in a timely manner
• Avoid conflicts of interest
• Comply with the journal's ethics policy

5. Ethical Considerations

The journal adheres to strict publication ethics in accordance with COPE guidelines. Reviewers must report any suspected ethical violations, including:

• Plagiarism
• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Conflicts of interest
• Duplicate publication

By participating in the review process, reviewers contribute to maintaining the journal's high standards and advancing scholarly research.

Template and Submission

All submissions must be in Microsoft Word (.docx) format and must use the official submission template: