Editorial & Review Policy

All articles submitted to this journal have to meet its author guidelines, focus, and scope. Manuscripts that are submitted must discuss scientific merit or novelty that is relevant to the scope and focus. Every paper needs to be free of any instances of plagiarism. It is advised that all authors perform the similarity check using plagiarism detection software. Using Turnitin software, editors verify that publications in this journal are free of plagiarism. At least two (2) or more professional reviewers will conduct a double anonymized review processon the manuscript submitted to this journal. The reviewers provide insightful scientific feedback that enhances the manuscript's content. After submissions are submitted online, the screening committee conducts an initial screening. The managing editor assigns each submission that passes the screening procedure to two associate editors for review. The assistant managing editor gathers the two reviewers' reports, and if both agree that the piece is publishable, the assistant managing editor delivers the article, together with the gathered reports and recommendations, to the managing editor. The managing editor, in cooperation with the editor-in-chief, takes the final decision on manuscript acceptance and supervises revision and production. The editor-in-chief will decide whether to publish approved papers, including the order in which they are published, based on the sequence of accepted dates and author geographical distribution as well as the thematic issue.

 

Manuscript Review Guidelines

1. Originality and Contribution

Assess whether the manuscript presents novel, relevant, and interesting findings. Consider whether it makes a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge and whether the research question addresses an important issue within the field. Evaluate the manuscript in relation to influential or frequently cited studies, which may be identified through databases such as Web of Science or Scopus. If similar research has already been published, identify the relevant literature and provide appropriate references to the editor.

2. Layout and Formatting

Examine whether the manuscript follows the journal’s author guidelines regarding structure, formatting, length, referencing style, tables, figures, and overall presentation. If significant deviations are found and these have not been addressed by the editor, they should be mentioned in the review or communicated to the editor. However, if the manuscript demonstrates substantial originality or potential significance, formatting issues may be addressed after an editorial decision has been made.

3. Title

Determine whether the title accurately represents the content and scope of the manuscript. It should clearly communicate the central topic, incorporate relevant keywords, and reflect the significance of the study. The title should also be sufficiently precise to facilitate the discovery of the article through academic databases and search engines.

4. Structured Abstract

Check whether the abstract contains all elements required by the journal. Assess whether the information presented is accurate, concise, and consistent with the objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions of the manuscript. The abstract should provide readers with a clear overview of the study without introducing information that is not discussed in the main text.

5. Introduction

Evaluate whether the introduction clearly establishes the background and rationale of the study. The authors should explain the research problem, objectives, and research questions in a coherent manner. The introduction should also provide an adequate review of relevant and recent literature, establish the research gap, and explain how the current study extends, challenges, or complements previous research. Important studies that are directly relevant to the topic should not be overlooked.

6. Methodology

Assess whether the research methodology is appropriate for addressing the stated research questions or objectives. The manuscript should provide a clear description of the research design, participants or sampling procedures, data collection process, instruments, materials, and analytical procedures. If a novel method or procedure is employed, it should be explained sufficiently for readers to understand and, where appropriate, replicate the study. The authors should also clearly identify the type of data collected and explain how key variables, constructs, or measurements were operationalized.

7. Statistical Analysis

Where statistical procedures are used, carefully evaluate their appropriateness, accuracy, and interpretation. Check whether the selected statistical techniques are consistent with the research design and type of data. Particular attention should be given to potential errors in statistical calculations, reporting, interpretation, significance testing, and presentation of statistical results.

8. Results

Evaluate whether the findings are presented in a clear, systematic, and logically organized manner. The results should directly address the research questions or objectives and should be supported by appropriate analyses. Consider whether the analytical procedures are suitable and whether the presentation distinguishes clearly between empirical findings and the authors’ interpretations.

9. Discussion and Conclusion

Assess whether the discussion appropriately interprets the findings and whether the claims made by the authors are adequately supported by the evidence. Determine whether the findings are consistent with, extend, or challenge previous research and theoretical perspectives. The discussion should explain the significance of the findings and demonstrate how they contribute to existing knowledge. The conclusion should synthesize the major findings and clearly connect them with the research objectives, questions, and broader contribution of the study.

10. Figures and Tables

Review all tables, figures, graphs, and other visual materials for accuracy, relevance, clarity, and consistency. Determine whether they provide meaningful information that strengthens the presentation of the findings. Assess whether the data are represented accurately and whether titles, labels, captions, units, and formatting are presented consistently throughout the manuscript. Where appropriate, provide specific suggestions for improving their readability and effectiveness.

11. Language and Academic Writing

Consider whether the quality of the English language affects the clarity and comprehensibility of the manuscript. Pay attention to grammar, sentence construction, terminology, academic style, and overall readability. If substantial language problems interfere with understanding the authors’ arguments, this should be clearly indicated in the review report. Detailed language editing is generally outside the reviewer’s primary responsibility unless specifically requested by the journal.

12. Implications for Research and Practice

Evaluate whether the manuscript clearly explains the implications of its findings and whether it effectively connects theory with practice. Consider the potential contribution of the study in several areas:

  • Practical application: How might the findings be implemented in professional or organizational contexts?

  • Economic or commercial relevance: Do the findings have potential economic or practical value?

  • Teaching and education: How could the results inform teaching practices, curriculum development, or educational policy?

  • Public policy: Could the findings contribute to policy development or decision-making?

  • Further research: Does the study extend, refine, or challenge existing knowledge and provide directions for future research?

  • Societal impact: Could the findings influence public understanding, social practices, or quality of life?

The reviewer should also determine whether these proposed implications are logically derived from the findings and conclusions rather than being overstated.

13. Quality and Clarity of Communication

Assess whether the manuscript communicates its arguments and findings effectively to the journal’s intended readership. The writing should use terminology appropriate to the discipline while remaining clear and accessible. Reviewers should consider sentence structure, organization, coherence, use of technical terms, acronyms, and unnecessary jargon. The manuscript should present a logical progression of ideas that enables readers to understand the research problem, methodology, findings, and contribution.

14. Overall Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, provide an overall recommendation to the editor based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, significance, and suitability for the journal. The recommendation generally falls into one of the following categories:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes required.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited corrections or improvements before publication.

  • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial modifications to address important methodological, analytical, theoretical, or conceptual issues.

  • Reject: The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses, lacks sufficient originality or contribution, or is not suitable for publication in the journal.

15. Minor Revisions

Minor revisions generally involve relatively limited changes that can be completed without substantially altering the study. These may include correcting formatting or presentation issues, adjusting the manuscript to comply with journal guidelines, reducing or refining the word count, improving table or figure labels, clarifying particular statements, strengthening the use of relevant literature, or providing additional explanation of specific findings.

16. Major Revisions

Major revisions involve substantial changes that may require considerable time and effort from the authors. Such revisions may include addressing weaknesses in the research design or methodology, providing additional data or analyses, strengthening the theoretical framework, substantially revising the interpretation of findings, or refining the research questions. In some cases, authors may need to undertake additional research or analysis to demonstrate a sufficiently original and meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

 

Manuscript Review Guidelines

1. Originality and Contribution

Assess whether the manuscript presents novel, relevant, and interesting findings. Consider whether it makes a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge and whether the research question addresses an important issue within the field. Evaluate the manuscript in relation to influential or frequently cited studies, which may be identified through databases such as Web of Science or Scopus. If similar research has already been published, identify the relevant literature and provide appropriate references to the editor.

2. Layout and Formatting

Examine whether the manuscript follows the journal’s author guidelines regarding structure, formatting, length, referencing style, tables, figures, and overall presentation. If significant deviations are found and these have not been addressed by the editor, they should be mentioned in the review or communicated to the editor. However, if the manuscript demonstrates substantial originality or potential significance, formatting issues may be addressed after an editorial decision has been made.

3. Title

Determine whether the title accurately represents the content and scope of the manuscript. It should clearly communicate the central topic, incorporate relevant keywords, and reflect the significance of the study. The title should also be sufficiently precise to facilitate the discovery of the article through academic databases and search engines.

4. Structured Abstract

Check whether the abstract contains all elements required by the journal. Assess whether the information presented is accurate, concise, and consistent with the objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions of the manuscript. The abstract should provide readers with a clear overview of the study without introducing information that is not discussed in the main text.

5. Introduction

Evaluate whether the introduction clearly establishes the background and rationale of the study. The authors should explain the research problem, objectives, and research questions in a coherent manner. The introduction should also provide an adequate review of relevant and recent literature, establish the research gap, and explain how the current study extends, challenges, or complements previous research. Important studies that are directly relevant to the topic should not be overlooked.

6. Methodology

Assess whether the research methodology is appropriate for addressing the stated research questions or objectives. The manuscript should provide a clear description of the research design, participants or sampling procedures, data collection process, instruments, materials, and analytical procedures. If a novel method or procedure is employed, it should be explained sufficiently for readers to understand and, where appropriate, replicate the study. The authors should also clearly identify the type of data collected and explain how key variables, constructs, or measurements were operationalized.

7. Statistical Analysis

Where statistical procedures are used, carefully evaluate their appropriateness, accuracy, and interpretation. Check whether the selected statistical techniques are consistent with the research design and type of data. Particular attention should be given to potential errors in statistical calculations, reporting, interpretation, significance testing, and presentation of statistical results.

8. Results

Evaluate whether the findings are presented in a clear, systematic, and logically organized manner. The results should directly address the research questions or objectives and should be supported by appropriate analyses. Consider whether the analytical procedures are suitable and whether the presentation distinguishes clearly between empirical findings and the authors’ interpretations.

9. Discussion and Conclusion

Assess whether the discussion appropriately interprets the findings and whether the claims made by the authors are adequately supported by the evidence. Determine whether the findings are consistent with, extend, or challenge previous research and theoretical perspectives. The discussion should explain the significance of the findings and demonstrate how they contribute to existing knowledge. The conclusion should synthesize the major findings and clearly connect them with the research objectives, questions, and broader contribution of the study.

10. Figures and Tables

Review all tables, figures, graphs, and other visual materials for accuracy, relevance, clarity, and consistency. Determine whether they provide meaningful information that strengthens the presentation of the findings. Assess whether the data are represented accurately and whether titles, labels, captions, units, and formatting are presented consistently throughout the manuscript. Where appropriate, provide specific suggestions for improving their readability and effectiveness.

11. Language and Academic Writing

Consider whether the quality of the English language affects the clarity and comprehensibility of the manuscript. Pay attention to grammar, sentence construction, terminology, academic style, and overall readability. If substantial language problems interfere with understanding the authors’ arguments, this should be clearly indicated in the review report. Detailed language editing is generally outside the reviewer’s primary responsibility unless specifically requested by the journal.

12. Implications for Research and Practice

Evaluate whether the manuscript clearly explains the implications of its findings and whether it effectively connects theory with practice. Consider the potential contribution of the study in several areas:

  • Practical application: How might the findings be implemented in professional or organizational contexts?

  • Economic or commercial relevance: Do the findings have potential economic or practical value?

  • Teaching and education: How could the results inform teaching practices, curriculum development, or educational policy?

  • Public policy: Could the findings contribute to policy development or decision-making?

  • Further research: Does the study extend, refine, or challenge existing knowledge and provide directions for future research?

  • Societal impact: Could the findings influence public understanding, social practices, or quality of life?

The reviewer should also determine whether these proposed implications are logically derived from the findings and conclusions rather than being overstated.

13. Quality and Clarity of Communication

Assess whether the manuscript communicates its arguments and findings effectively to the journal’s intended readership. The writing should use terminology appropriate to the discipline while remaining clear and accessible. Reviewers should consider sentence structure, organization, coherence, use of technical terms, acronyms, and unnecessary jargon. The manuscript should present a logical progression of ideas that enables readers to understand the research problem, methodology, findings, and contribution.

14. Overall Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, provide an overall recommendation to the editor based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, significance, and suitability for the journal. The recommendation generally falls into one of the following categories:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes required.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited corrections or improvements before publication.

  • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial modifications to address important methodological, analytical, theoretical, or conceptual issues.

  • Reject: The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses, lacks sufficient originality or contribution, or is not suitable for publication in the journal.

15. Minor Revisions

Minor revisions generally involve relatively limited changes that can be completed without substantially altering the study. These may include correcting formatting or presentation issues, adjusting the manuscript to comply with journal guidelines, reducing or refining the word count, improving table or figure labels, clarifying particular statements, strengthening the use of relevant literature, or providing additional explanation of specific findings.

16. Major Revisions

Major revisions involve substantial changes that may require considerable time and effort from the authors. Such revisions may include addressing weaknesses in the research design or methodology, providing additional data or analyses, strengthening the theoretical framework, substantially revising the interpretation of findings, or refining the research questions. In some cases, authors may need to undertake additional research or analysis to demonstrate a sufficiently original and meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

 

The manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient originality or a clear and significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge, while the research problem and findings appear to substantially overlap with previous studies. In addition, several critical aspects of the methodology, data analysis, presentation of results, and discussion require substantial improvement, limiting the validity and reliability of the conclusions. Therefore, considering the manuscript’s limited novelty, methodological weaknesses, and insufficient theoretical and practical contribution, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form and is recommended for rejection.