Peer Review Policy

  1. Double-Blind Review

Proceedings follows a double-blind peer review policy. Neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other?s identities. To ensure anonymity, each manuscript is assigned a unique ID by the Editorial Office, and all identifying information (cover page, author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, etc.) is removed before being sent for review.

(Refer to ICMJE Recommendations https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/editorial-process.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

and COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers?utm_source=chatgpt.com ).

  1. Editorial Review

Some manuscripts undergo an initial editorial review (by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate/Sub Editors) to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal?s scope
  • Originality and novelty
  • Compliance with ethical and technical standards
  • Adherence to formatting and referencing guidelines

This process usually takes 2?4 weeks. Only manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to external peer review.

  1. Reviewer Selection
  • Reviewers are chosen from a diverse pool of national and international experts.
  • Selection is based on subject expertise, prior performance, and absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewers are rotated periodically to maintain fairness and avoid reviewer fatigue.
  1. Review Process and Timelines
  • Preliminary editorial checks are completed within 2 weeks.
  • Reviewers are normally given 2 weeks to return their reports.
  • If delayed, reminders are issued at 2 weeks and 10 days thereafter.
  • Non-responsive reviewers are replaced to avoid undue delays.
  1. Number and Type of Reviews

At least two independent peer review reports are required for each manuscript. Of these, at least one must be from an international reviewer.

  1. Feedback to Authors
  • Reviewers? comments are shared with authors in full, except in cases of confidential remarks to the editor.
  • Authors must address all comments systematically and resubmit within the given timeframe.
  • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the editorial team or returned to reviewers if necessary.
  1. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
  • Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.
  • Reviewers must not share, copy, or use manuscript content for personal or professional gain.
  • All reviewers must declare potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal) before accepting an assignment.
  • Editors also recuse themselves in cases of conflicts of interest.
  1. Reviewer Recognition & Accountability
  • Reviewers are acknowledged annually by the journal through certificates of appreciation.
  • Review contributions may be recognized on platforms such as Publons and linked to ORCID IDs (with reviewer consent).
  • Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, respectful, and timely feedback. Failure to comply may result in removal from the reviewer pool.
  • Any unethical behavior (e.g., breach of confidentiality, plagiarism in review comments, or bias) will be reported to the reviewer?s institution and relevant authorities, following COPE flowcharts.
  1. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial team, makes the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection. Peer reviewers serve in an advisory capacity, and while their recommendations are highly valued, they do not guarantee acceptance.