Review Process

Articles submitted to this online journal undergo a Double Blind Review by at least one reviewer, and the average time from submission to publication is eight weeks.

Stage 1.
The Editorial Board conducts an initial screening to decide whether the article is suitable to be forwarded to the Review Team (Reject or proceed to the next stage).

Stage 2.
At this stage, based on the reviewers' comments and the revisions made by the author, the Editorial Board decides whether to accept or reject the article.

Authors whose manuscripts are rejected will be informed of the reasons for rejection. No correspondence between authors and editors will be entered into regarding rejection decisions.

Correction, Retraction, and Post-Publication Discussion Policy

This journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Published articles are considered final and are not altered directly. Any changes after publication are made through correction or retraction procedures in accordance with COPE guidelines.

1. Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum)

A correction is issued when an error is found that does not affect the overall validity of the findings, such as errors in author names or affiliations, errors in tables, figures, or numbers, and errors in citations or references.

• An Erratum is published when the error originates from the journal (editing or layout process).
• A Corrigendum is published when the error originates from the author.

Authors may submit a correction request to the Editorial Board via the journal's email, along with an explanation. If approved, the journal will publish a correction notice linked to the original article, and the corrected version of the article will be marked with the date of correction.

2. Retraction

A published article may be retracted if it is later found to involve a breach of publication ethics, including:

1. The article has been previously published in another journal or medium (duplicate publication).
2. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism.
3. Fabrication or falsification of data.
4. Serious errors that render the findings or conclusions unreliable.
5. Violations of research ethics, copyright infringement, or authorship disputes.

The retraction procedure is as follows:

1. Identification and reporting. Suspected misconduct may be identified by the Editorial Board or reported by reviewers, readers, institutions, or the authors themselves.
2. Investigation. The Editorial Board examines the case, including comparing the article with other publications and reviewing the available evidence.
3. Author clarification. The author is given the opportunity to provide a written explanation within a timeframe set by the Editorial Board.
4. Decision. Based on the investigation and clarification, the Editorial Board decides whether the article will be retracted, corrected (erratum/corrigendum), or retained. The Editorial Board's decision is final.
5. Retraction notice. If the article is retracted, the journal will publish a Retraction Notice stating the article title, author names, and reason for retraction. The notice will be linked to the original article.
6. Article marking. Retracted articles are not removed from the archive but remain accessible with a "RETRACTED" watermark on every page to preserve the scholarly record.
7. Notification of relevant parties. Where necessary, the journal will inform the author's institution and indexing services of the retraction decision.

Authors whose articles are retracted due to serious ethical misconduct may be barred from submitting manuscripts to this journal for a period determined by the Editorial Board.

3. Withdrawal by the Author Before Publication

Authors may withdraw their manuscript while it is under review by submitting a written request stating the reasons to the Editorial Board. Withdrawal of a manuscript after it has been accepted or scheduled for publication is only possible with the approval of the Editorial Board.

4. Post-Publication Discussion

This journal encourages scholarly discussion of published articles to support transparency and the continuous improvement of research. Readers may submit comments, questions, critiques, or additional insights on any published article through the following channels:

1. Comments on the article page. Readers may leave comments directly on the article page on the journal website (registration may be required).
2. Letters to the Editor. Readers may send a written response or critique to the Editorial Board via the journal's email, stating the title of the article being discussed.

All submitted comments and letters are reviewed by the Editorial Board before publication. Comments must be relevant to the article's content, academic in nature, polite, and free from personal attacks, defamatory statements, or commercial promotion. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject comments that do not meet these criteria.

Where a comment or letter raises substantive issues, the Editorial Board will forward it to the corresponding author, who will be given the opportunity to respond. Relevant letters and author responses may be published in the journal and linked to the original article.

If post-publication discussion reveals errors or ethical concerns, the Editorial Board will follow the correction and retraction procedures described above.