All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office before being sent for external review.

The editorial screening considers:

• Relevance to the scope of the Journal
• Originality and academic contribution
• Methodological quality
• Clarity and quality of presentation
• Compliance with submission requirements
• Ethical considerations
• Plagiarism or excessive textual similarity
• Suitability for peer review

Manuscripts that fall outside the Journal's scope or fail to meet essential academic, ethical or originality requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, academic background, methodological knowledge and availability.

The Journal takes reasonable steps to ensure that reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the authors, their institutions or the research under consideration.

Reviewers are generally expected to assess the following aspects of a submitted manuscript:

• Maintain strict confidentiality.
• Provide objective, constructive and evidence-based comments.
• Evaluate manuscripts independently and fairly.
• Identify significant errors or weaknesses.
• Identify potential ethical or academic-integrity concerns.
• Disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
• Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding manuscripts under review unless authorised by the Editorial Office.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or authorised editorial team.

After considering the reviewers' reports, the Editorial Office may:

• Accept the manuscript.
• Request minor revisions.
• Request major revisions.
• Invite resubmission after substantial revision.
• Reject the manuscript.

The Journal may seek additional reviews where necessary.

Peer review does not guarantee publication.

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

1. A revised manuscript.
2. A detailed response to the reviewers' comments.

Authors should address substantive comments individually and clearly explain the changes made.

If an author disagrees with a reviewer, the response should provide a reasoned academic explanation supported by appropriate evidence.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Reviewer identities are confidential and will not normally be disclosed to authors.

Review reports, editorial correspondence, manuscripts and other materials associated with the review process must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not share, reproduce or distribute manuscripts or review materials without authorisation.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if personal, professional, institutional, financial, collaborative or other relationships could reasonably affect their impartiality.

Editors are also expected to identify and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should confidentially inform the Editorial Office if they identify concerns relating to:

• Plagiarism
• Fabrication or falsification of data
• Duplicate publication
• Inappropriate authorship
• Citation manipulation
• Unethical research practices
• Other forms of academic or publication misconduct

The Journal may conduct further investigation and take appropriate action in accordance with its publication-ethics policies.

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript.

Decisions are not influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal relationships, commercial interests or ability or willingness to pay publication charges.

Where applicable, Article Processing Charges are completely separate from editorial and peer-review decisions.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant procedural error, misunderstanding or inappropriate evaluation affected the decision.

An appeal should:

• Be submitted by the corresponding author.
• Clearly identify the manuscript.
• Explain the specific grounds for appeal.
• Address the substantive concerns.
• Provide supporting evidence where relevant.

An appeal is not intended merely to contest an unfavourable academic judgement.

Where appropriate and subject to reviewer consent and confidentiality requirements, the Journal may recognise reviewers for their scholarly contribution through certificates or other forms of acknowledgment.

Reviewer identities will remain confidential unless disclosure is authorised under the Journal's policies.