Request for review

Peer review plays a crucial role in ensuring the scientific quality of the Journal. The Journal values ​​the contributions of its reviewers and is committed to supporting a smooth and effective review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities:
Objective and constructive evaluation. Review comments must be based on scientific evidence, clearly presented, and constructive. Reviewers should focus on evaluating the scientific quality of the article, not making personal opinions about the author.

Strict confidentiality. Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers may not share, quote, or use any content of the manuscript for personal purposes in any form without the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.

Report conflicts of interest. Reviewers are responsible for refusing to review immediately if they perceive a conflict of interest with the author or the research content, or if they lack the necessary expertise to conduct a comprehensive review.

Report ethical violations. Upon detecting any signs of plagiarism, duplicate publications, data manipulation, or violations of research ethics, reviewers are responsible for immediately notifying the Editorial Board with specific evidence.

Evaluation Criteria
Peer reviewers will evaluate the article based on the following criteria:

● Urgency and significance of the research problem

● Novelty and level of scientific contribution

● Appropriateness and rigor of the research design and methods

● Quality of data collection, processing, and analysis

● Proof of results and relevance of conclusions

● Quality of presentation, structure, and language of the article

Timeline

The deadline is calculated from the date the reviewer receives the manuscript.

If more time is needed, or if it is not possible to arrange a time for peer review, please inform the Journal Secretary as soon as possible so that we can coordinate the matter.