Editorial Review Procedures

Authors must submit two separate files in order for their article to be considered for publication – one containing the text of the article, the other containing the author’s biographical information.

Our journal uses double-blind review, meaning that author/s’ names are not revealed to reviewers, and the reviewer/s’ names are withheld from the authors. Final publication is determined by the Editor-in-Chief.

1.Each submission is checked for suitability when received by the editorial office, and may be rejected without review if it is outside the scope of the journal, is obviously of insufficient quality, or is missing important sections. If an article conforms to these standards then it will be sent to a reviewer by an editorial office staff member, who is either a PhD or other recognized expert in the field closest to the article’s topic.

2. Allow one (1) month for our staff to review your article before inquiring about whether it is being considered for publication.

3. Reviews by our editorial board or an external reviewer will cover the following questions:

a) whether the content of the article is consistent with the title stated in the title;

b) the scientific novelty of the study;

c) the availability of the article’s material to readers in terms of language, style, the structure of the article, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas;

d) whether the selected methods and methodology of the study are adequate, whether the ideas are innovative and whether the publication of the article is appropriate;

e) theoretical foundations of the concepts;

f) the credibility of the hypothesis and the validity of the arguments;

j) consistency of the findings with the aims and objectives of the study.

4. All reviews will be retained on file by our editorial board for five (5) years.

5. Upon receipt of the review, the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision to either (1) accept, (2) request minor revisions, (3) request major revisions, or (4) reject the submission. Reasons for the editor’s decision will be communicated to the authors. If the author agrees with revision suggestions and resubmits a revised article to the editor, the article will be re-submitted for further review or directly to the Editor-in-Chief for reconsideration.

6. If author/s do not revise their articles satisfactorily after receiving reviewer reports, then the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the article. When revised articles are received, they will either be sent out for further review or the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision depending on the level of revision requested