Before You Submit

Prior to submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors should consider the following checklist:

Content

• Does the manuscript align with the aims and scope of the journal?
• Is the text written clearly, concisely, and accessibly for an international audience?
• Do you have formal permission to reproduce any copyrighted images or figures?

Structure and Formatting

• Does the manuscript comply with the word count and formatting specified in the Guidelines for Authors?
• Does the Identification and Publication Consent Form include the names, affiliations, and contact details of all authors?
• Are all in-text citations, footnotes, and captions properly listed in the reference list?
• Is the manuscript anonymized in accordance with the journal’s peer review policy?

Writing for a Scientific Journal

Writing a scientific article is the culmination of thoughtful, rigorous, and ethical academic work. Even when data and ideas are well-developed, authors often face challenges in presenting them in a coherent and structured manner. The journal encourages authors to:

• Uphold ethical standards by properly citing sources and avoiding plagiarism.
• Write with clarity, avoiding grammar and language issues.
• Adapt the style and structure to the intended format — whether it is a journal article, conference paper, or other academic output.

A well-organized manuscript should reflect a coherent line of reasoning, with all phases of the study documented and aligned.

Article Structure

Abstract

• A standalone summary that stimulates the reader’s interest.
• Should not include citations, abbreviations, or references to the full text.
• Must clearly state the problem, the proposed solution, and the impact of the study.

Introduction

• Introduce the importance of the topic.
• Summarize the existing literature and current state of knowledge.
• Clearly articulate the research gap, objectives, and justification for the study.

Body of the Article

• Describe the research problem and its significance.
• Present the methodology employed to address the problem.
• Report results, and discuss them in relation to the existing literature.
• Emphasize the contribution of the study.

Conclusion

• Recap the main findings and link them back to the research objectives.
• Discuss the implications, limitations, and future directions.
• Avoid introducing new terms or content not already explained in the article.

The Journal’s Peer Review Process

The journal follows a two-stage manuscript evaluation:

1. Desk Review
   • Conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors to verify scope, originality, and baseline quality.
2. Peer Review
   • Authors may choose one of the following models:
     1. Single-blind: reviewer is anonymous; author is identified.
     2. Double-blind (default): both reviewer and author are anonymous.
     3. Open review: both reviewer and author identities are known.

Evaluation Criteria

The journal reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following indicators of scientific quality:

• Relevance and timeliness of the topic.
• Originality of the contribution.
• Theoretical soundness and conceptual clarity.
• Writing quality and structural organization.
• Methodological rigor and analytical depth.
• Significance of results to academic or professional practice.
• Strength of conclusions, and consistency with presented data.