1. Initial Editorial Assessment

• Preliminary Screening: Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor to evaluate their originality, scientific quality, and suitability for the journal's scope, ensuring editorial independence and responsibility as mandated by the COPE Core Practices.
• Desk Rejection: Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, exhibit poor academic quality, fail to follow submission guidelines, or show evidence of plagiarism will be desk-rejected without undergoing formal peer review, fulfilling the editor's duty to manage journal quality efficiently under the COPE Core Practices for Journal Editors.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

• Anonymity: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is subjected to a strict double-blind peer review process where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept strictly confidential from one another to prevent any bias, in accordance with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
• Reviewer Selection: The manuscript will be sent to a minimum of two independent, external expert reviewers who are carefully selected based on their specific academic expertise and lack of competing interests, aligning directly with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

3. Reviewer Duties and Ethical Conduct

• Confidentiality: Invited reviewers must treat the manuscript as a highly confidential document and must not share, discuss, or use any part of the unpublished work for their own advantage, as strictly mandated by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• Objectivity and Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscript objectively, provide clear, well-reasoned, and constructive feedback, and entirely avoid any personal criticism of the authors, following the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must explicitly declare any potential financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation, conforming to COPE's mandate on Competing Interests.

4. Final Editorial Decision

• Decision Making: The final decision to accept, reject, or request major/minor revisions for a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, who bases this decision on the reviewers' recommendations, the validity of the research, and the paper's scientific merit, as outlined in the COPE Core Practices.
• Independence: Editors must ensure that the entire peer-review and decision-making process remains completely objective and free from commercial influence, political pressure, or personal bias, adhering directly to the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.