Review Process

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process to ensure fair and impartial evaluation of all manuscripts. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous, and all stages of review are managed through the Journal Platform.

1. Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the Journal Platform. Submissions must follow the journal’s guidelines for format, word length and referencing. The editorial office checks basic compliance and scope. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal’s aims or minimum standards may be declined at this stage.

2. Similarity and AI Screening (Turnitin)

All eligible manuscripts undergo initial screening using Turnitin.

  • Similarity check
    The journal applies a 20% similarity threshold, after excluding properly formatted quotations and the bibliography. Manuscripts with a similarity index below 20% normally proceed to the next stage. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20% may be returned to authors for clarification or revision, or may be rejected where overlap suggests plagiarism or redundant publication.
  • AI writing detection
    The journal also uses Turnitin’s AI detection tools. A threshold of 20% AI generated content is applied as a trigger for further scrutiny. Where AI use appears to compromise originality, authorship, or academic integrity, the manuscript may be rejected or returned for detailed explanation and revision.
  • Outcome
    The outcome of this screening is recorded in the Journal Platform and forms part of the internal editorial record.

3. Assignment to Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass initial checks are assigned to a handling editor with appropriate subject expertise. At this point the editor may issue a desk rejection or send the manuscript forward for external review. The editor assesses:

  • Fit with the journal’s scope and readership.
  • The basic clarity, coherence and methodological soundness of the work.
  • Any remaining concerns about research ethics or integrity.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts sent for review are anonymised. Identifying details are removed from the manuscript file and from any supplementary material made available to reviewers. The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The target time for issuing a first decision is 2 to 3 weeks from initial submission.

  • Evaluation Criteria
    Reviewers evaluate originality, theoretical grounding, research design, data analysis, interpretation of findings, and quality of writing.
  • Decision Types
    Based on reports, the editor decides to: Accept with minor revisions, Revise and resubmit (major revisions), or Reject.

5. Revisions and Final Decision

Where revisions are requested, authors submit a revised manuscript and a detailed response to reviewers through the Journal Platform. The typical time for the full review process, from initial submission to final decision, is 3 to 6 weeks.

  • Review of Revisions
    The handling editor may make a decision based on the revised manuscript and response, or send the revision back to one or more original reviewers for further comment.
  • Final Outcome
    On the basis of the revised submission, the editor issues a final decision to: Accept, Request further minor changes, or Reject.

6. Post Acceptance

Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, layout and proofing within the Journal Platform. Authors review proofs for accuracy before publication. This review procedure is designed to ensure a rigorous, transparent and fair evaluation of all manuscripts while maintaining realistic and clearly communicated timeframes.