1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submitted manuscript is first examined by the editorial office to determine whether it is suitable for consideration by the journal.

The initial assessment may consider the subject of the manuscript, its relationship to the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic presentation, completeness and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

2. Manuscripts Outside the Journal's Scope

A manuscript that falls outside the journal's aims and scope may be declined at the initial editorial stage without being sent for external review.

Authors are encouraged to consult the journal's Aims & Scope before submitting their work.

3. Preliminary Quality Check

The editorial office may check whether the manuscript contains the information required for scholarly assessment, including appropriate author information, abstract, keywords, references and other relevant material.

Manuscripts requiring substantial correction before review may be returned to the authors for improvement.

4. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be checked for plagiarism and inappropriate textual overlap before or during the editorial process.

Where substantial or inappropriate overlap is identified, the editorial office may request clarification from the authors or take further action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and plagiarism policies.

Further information is available in the Plagiarism Policy .

5. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review may be assigned to reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise.

The selection of reviewers is made by the editorial office with consideration of the subject and academic requirements of the manuscript.

6. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent scholarly assessment of the manuscript. Individuals who have a conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors should not participate in the review.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review should be treated as confidential scholarly material. Reviewers should not disclose, reproduce or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for purposes unrelated to the review.

8. Evaluation of Manuscripts

Reviewers may consider a range of scholarly factors, including:

• Originality of the research
• Relevance to the subject of the journal
• Clarity of the research problem or objectives
• Use and interpretation of sources
• Appropriateness of the methodology
• Quality of the analysis and argument
• Engagement with relevant scholarship
• Accuracy and consistency of citations and references
• Clarity of presentation
• Contribution to historical or related scholarship

9. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers may provide comments concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and may recommend revisions where necessary.

Reviewer comments should be scholarly, evidence-based and directed towards improving the manuscript.

10. Editorial Decision

Following editorial assessment and, where applicable, peer review, the editorial office communicates a decision to the author.

Possible decisions may include acceptance, revision or rejection, depending on the assessment of the manuscript and the journal's editorial requirements.

11. Revision

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully consider the comments provided by the editorial office and reviewers.

Authors may be asked to provide a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how the comments have been addressed.

12. Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor and, where appropriate, returned to reviewers for further consideration.

The extent of further review depends on the nature of the revisions and the editorial assessment of the manuscript.

13. Editorial Responsibility

The final decision concerning publication rests with the journal's editorial process. Peer-review recommendations form part of the editorial assessment but do not by themselves constitute a guarantee of publication.

14. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations are considered alongside the manuscript, editorial assessment and other relevant information available to the journal.

The editorial office may seek additional review where necessary to reach an informed editorial decision.

15. Appeals and Queries

Authors who wish to seek clarification concerning an editorial decision should communicate with the editorial office and provide a clear explanation of their query.

Appeals should address specific scholarly or procedural concerns and should not simply repeat the original submission.

16. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers and editors should disclose relevant conflicts of interest that could affect the impartial consideration of a manuscript.

17. Ethical Conduct During Review

Reviewers should not use unpublished material obtained through the review process for personal research or other purposes without appropriate permission.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless this is authorised by the editorial office.

18. Publication Decision

A manuscript is considered for publication only after completing the journal's required editorial procedures. Acceptance may be subject to satisfactory revision, editorial preparation and completion of the publication process.

19. Post-Publication Matters

The journal may consider corrections or other post-publication action where a published article is subsequently found to contain a material error or where concerns regarding research or publication integrity are brought to the editorial office.

Such matters are handled according to the relevant journal policies, including the Retraction Policy .

20. Reviewer Contribution

Peer review is an important part of scholarly communication. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts fairly, independently and within the scope of their academic expertise.

The journal appreciates the time and scholarly contribution of reviewers who participate in the assessment of submitted research.

21. Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors should provide accurate information, respond to editorial communication in a timely manner and disclose any relevant information that may affect the consideration of their manuscript.

Authors should not attempt to influence reviewers or interfere with the review process.

22. Related Policies

The peer-review process should be read together with the journal's policies concerning publication ethics, plagiarism, copyright, open access and retraction.

Authors may consult the Publication Ethics and Plagiarism Policy for further information.