I. PROCEDURES FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

1. Responding to the review invitation: The Journal applies a double-blind peer review process - reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other in order to ensure objectivity and fairness. The manuscript will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers for scholarly quality, focusing on criteria such as the novelty of the research, scientific methodology, the reliability of results, and academic value. Upon completion of the peer-review process reviewers may be eligible to receive an honorarium in accordance with Journal policy and applicable regulations. Upon receiving an invitation to review from the Editorial Board, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript aligns with their area of expertise and their work schedule, ensuring disciplinary suitability and timely completion of the review. Reviewers should confirm with the Editorial Office whether they agree to review or decline the invitation, so that the Journal may invite an alternative reviewer. After one week of no response from the date the invitation is sent, the Journal reserves the right to invite another reviewer and deem that the invitation will be considered declined.
2. Confirmation of conflicts of interest: Before starting, reviewers must ensure that there is no conflict of interest in relation to the research or authors. If reviewers identify any conflict (e.g., collaboration with authors, a related financial interest, or perceived bias), they should decline the review and inform the Editorial Board. Reviewers should not undertake a review when they consider themselves outside the appropriate expertise or are unable to provide an objective assessment.
3. Review deadline: Reviews are typically requested to be completed within 2-4 weeks. Reviewers must comply with the agreed deadline; ordinarily, no later than 30 days from receipt of the manuscript. If reviewers cannot complete the review on time, they must notify the Editorial Board in order to request an extension if necessary. Repeated late submission of comments or perfunctory, non-objective reviews may result in the Editorial Office refraining from inviting such reviewers in the future.
4. Conducting evaluation and submitting comments: Reviewers should read the manuscript carefully, beginning with an initial overview to grasp the main points, followed by a detailed reading to identify and annotate issues requiring comment. The review process consists of two main components: (1) Detailed comments on the manuscript or in the Review Form, identifying strengths, weaknesses, errors, or proposed revisions; (2) An overall evaluation submitted to the Editorial Board, including a brief summary of the manuscript, the significance of the research, and a recommended decision (accept, revise, or reject). Reviewers submit comments via the Journal’s online system or by email as instructed (e.g., uploading the completed review form to the OJS system, or sending the template review file in Word/PDF format). Ensure that reviewers’ identities are not disclosed in the content of the comments.
5. Revision and subsequent review: After authors revise the manuscript in response to comments, reviewers are responsible for re-checking the revised version if requested. Reviewers assess whether the revisions are satisfactory, identify remaining issues, and report back to the Editorial Board. If further revisions are needed, reviewers continue to provide specific feedback. This process ends when reviewers agree that the manuscript meets requirements or when the Editorial Board decides to end peer review. Each manuscript must have at least two independent reviewers; the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers’ comments and the quality of the manuscript after review.
6. Benefits for reviewers: Reviewers who collaborate with the Journal are entitled to appropriate academic and material recognition. First, reviewers’ expert opinions are respectfully acknowledged as an important scholarly contribution to improving article quality and enhancing the Journal’s academic reputation. Reviewers’ information is kept confidential; they are provided with adequate relevant materials to carry out an independent and objective evaluation; and they may be issued a certificate or confirmation of review participation as evidence of scholarly activity. In addition, the Journal pays reviewer honoraria in accordance with prevailing regulations, as a concrete acknowledgement of the effort, time, and professional responsibility that reviewers devote to the manuscript.

II. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPTS

When conducting a review, reviewers should assess the manuscript against the following standard scholarly criteria:

1. Novelty and scientific significance: Assess the originality of the research, whether the research question is novel, and whether the results contribute novel insights to the field. Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript overlaps with published studies and whether it extends existing knowledge. A manuscript may be rejected if it lacks novelty or merely repeats prior results.
2. Scholarly contribution and significance: Reviewers should assess the manuscript’s theoretical and practical contributions, including whether the study addresses an important scientific problem or a knowledge gap, and whether the findings are meaningful for scientific advancement or real-world application. Reviewers should clearly articulate the manuscript’s strengths, its novel contributions, and the potential impact of the research.
3. Research methodology: Evaluate the appropriateness and reliability of the methods. Reviewers should check whether the selected methods appropriately address the research question and comply with disciplinary standards. The research design, data collection, and analysis should be examined to determine whether sampling is appropriate, whether appropriate controls are included, and whether methods are described in sufficient detail to permit replication. If methods are weak or insufficiently described, Reviewers should recommend improvements, because methodology determines the reliability of the conclusions.
4. Logical structure and presentation: Assess whether the manuscript is coherent and logically organized. A scientific paper typically includes: Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Reviewers should evaluate each section: whether the research objectives are clearly stated, whether sections are tightly connected, whether the argument is persuasive, and whether it moves logically from results to conclusions. All claims must be supported by evidence in the results or by relevant references.
5. Language quality and format: Assess clarity of expression and presentation. The manuscript should be written in an academic, objective, comprehensible style with correct spelling and grammar. If the writing lacks clarity or contains substantial language errors that impede comprehension, reviewers should recommend revision. Check whether tables and figures (if any) are clear, necessary, and fully captioned. Verify whether the overall format (layout, citations, references) complies with the Journal’s instructions.
6. Citations and references: Evaluate the manuscript’s citation system. Reviewers should check whether authors adequately cite relevant studies in the literature review and discussion. If important sources are missing or unreliable materials are used, reviewers should request additions or replacements. References should be up-to-date and from reputable sources (prioritizing international peer-reviewed articles and scholarly monographs; limiting reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources). Cross-check the reference list against in-text citations to ensure consistency and completeness.
7. Reliability of data and results: Evaluate the quality of research data: whether the data are reliable and sufficiently robust to support the conclusions. Check whether the data analysis (statistics and interpretation) is reasonable and methodologically appropriate. If inconsistent, biased, or insufficient data are detected, reviewers should identify these issues explicitly. For qualitative research, assess the persuasiveness of the evidence (e.g., whether interview quotations are presented in proper context).
8. Ethics and academic integrity: Always consider ethical issues in research conduct and publication. Reviewers should check whether the research complies with ethical standards (e.g., for research involving human participants, whether necessary approvals/consent were obtained). At the same time, assess integrity: whether there are signs of plagiarism or self-plagiarism, and whether others’ ideas have been properly attributed. If substantial similarity to a published work is detected, reviewers must promptly notify the Editorial Board so that overlap can be checked.

III. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MANUSCRIPTS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Ensuring absolute confidentiality: Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript to any unauthorized individual during and after the peer-review process. Reviewers must not share the manuscript’s content, data, or results with colleagues without the Journal’s permission. All ideas and findings are the authors’ and are protected until publication; reviewers must not use the manuscript’s data or results for personal research purposes prior to publication. Breaching confidentiality undermines trust in peer review and is considered a serious ethical violation.
2. Conflicts of interest: Reviewers must honestly disclose conflicts of interest. If reviewers have any personal relationship or financial interest related to authors, the research institution, or hold a biased position on the research topic, reviewers should decline the invitation immediately upon receipt. If it is unclear whether a conflict exists, Reviewers should consult the Editorial Board for guidance. The aim is to ensure an objective, unbiased assessment. In addition, reviewers should not deliberately prolong the evaluation timeline or suggest that authors cite reviewers’ own work to improperly increase citation metrics - such behaviors violate scientific integrity.

IV. REVIEWER SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONDUCT

1. Objective, constructive evaluation: Reviewers should provide objective and fair comments, focusing on the scientific content rather than authors personally. Avoid personal attacks or unfounded criticism. Instead, identify deficiencies clearly and propose specific remedial directions. The goal is to help authors improve manuscript quality; therefore, the tone should be constructive and encouraging rather than disparaging. Clear and constructive feedback helps authors refine their paper, ensuring its scientific value.
2. Using polite, academic language: Reviews should be written in a polite, professional style. Academic language should be clear; offensive wording or personal attacks must never be used.
3. Fulfilling scientific responsibility: Serving as a reviewer means directly contributing to ensuring the scientific quality of the Journal. Reviewers should undertake the task seriously and conscientiously. Read the full manuscript and carefully check details before forming a conclusion. If serious disciplinary errors are found, explain them clearly in the comments. Reviewers should also identify positive aspects (if any) to encourage authors. Reviewers should not recommend rejection merely because of minor errors; instead, request revisions. Rejection should be recommended only when the manuscript has irremediable defects (e.g., an insignificant hypothesis, fabricated data, severe plagiarism, etc.). All conclusions in the evaluation must be supported by clear reasoning to persuade both the Editorial Board and authors.
4. Declining a review when necessary: Reviewers have the right and should decline when the manuscript is outside reviewers’ expertise, where there is a conflict of interest, where they lack sufficient time, or where circumstances are not suitable. This enables the Journal to invite another reviewer in a timely manner and ensures overall progress. A decline should include a brief reason and a note of thanks to the Editorial Board./.