1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office checks the manuscript for relevance to the journal's aims and scope, completeness of the submission, compliance with author instructions, and potential publication ethics concerns. The editor may return incomplete submissions for correction or decline manuscripts that do not meet basic editorial requirements.

A manuscript that passes screening is considered for external assessment. This screening stage does not constitute acceptance.

2. Review Model and Reviewer Appointment

The journal applies a (...) peer-review model and normally seeks evaluations from (...) independent subject specialists. The roles responsible for assigning a manuscript and inviting reviewers are (...).

Reviewers should be selected for topic-specific expertise and their ability to deliver a fair, evidence-based assessment. Editors should consider possible conflicts of interest and seek replacement or additional reviewers when needed. The anonymization practices, where applicable, follow the approved review model (...).

3. Scholarly Assessment

Peer reviewers assess the contribution and originality of the study, suitability of the research questions and methods, robustness of analysis, quality of evidence, ethical compliance, relevance of literature, and clarity of presentation. Assessments should provide constructive reasons for recommendations and identify matters that require correction.

Editorial assessment incorporates reviewers' advice while retaining the responsible editor's independent decision-making authority. Reviews are advisory and do not, by themselves, guarantee acceptance or rejection.

4. Editorial Decisions

After considering the reports and the manuscript's alignment with editorial standards, the handling editor communicates a reasoned decision. Depending on the journal's configured workflow, the possible outcomes may include:

• Accept: the manuscript meets scholarly standards, subject to remaining production checks.
• Minor revision: targeted corrections or clarifications are requested.
• Major revision: substantive changes and possible further evaluation are requested.
• Resubmit for review: a substantially revised manuscript may be considered as a new review cycle, where this option is supported.
• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements.

The authorized decision-maker and whether each outcome is available in this journal's workflow are (...).

5. Author Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors should submit an updated manuscript with a point-by-point response addressing reviewer and editor comments. Editors may assess the revised submission directly or invite further specialist review, depending on the scope of revisions.

Revision deadlines and extension arrangements are (...). Requests to revise do not constitute a commitment to publish.

6. Similarity Screening and Research Integrity

The editorial team may use similarity screening and other relevant checks to assess the originality and proper attribution of submitted work. Similarity percentages, where available, require contextual assessment and should not be treated as automatic evidence of misconduct.

The journal's approved screening tool, procedural threshold (if any), and handling of potential ethical concerns are (...). Allegations of research misconduct follow the journal's applicable publication ethics and correction procedures.

7. Confidentiality, Independence, and Appeals

Unpublished manuscripts and reviewer reports should be treated as confidential editorial materials. Editors and reviewers should disclose relationships or other interests that could influence their judgment, and should refrain from using unpublished material for unauthorized purposes.

The specific reviewer-identity disclosure rules and procedures for author complaints, appeals, or disputed recommendations are (...). If reports conflict materially, the editor may seek clarification or further independent assessment.

8. Summary of the Review Workflow

1. Submission of the manuscript and required documents.
2. Technical and initial editorial screening.
3. Assignment to a handling editor and identification of suitable reviewers.
4. Independent specialist evaluation.
5. Review of recommendations and editorial decision.
6. Author revision and response, where requested.
7. Reassessment or further review, when necessary.
8. Final editorial decision.
9. Copyediting, proofreading, and publication preparation for accepted manuscripts.

The expected initial-review time, reviewer turnaround time, and overall editorial decision period are (...). Actual duration may vary with reviewer availability and revision requirements.