1. The Peer Review Process
1.1 Double-Blind Peer Review System
The journal follows Double-Blind Peer Review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.
1.2 Preliminary Evaluation
At the preliminary stage, submitted articles undergo an initial evaluation by the Chief Editor or Managing Editor to determine their alignment with the journal’s core standards and scope. This assessment focuses on four primary criteria:
• Originality: The manuscript must demonstrate a substantial degree of novel insight or contribution to the field.
• Relevance: The research should align with the thematic focus of the journal and address issues pertinent to the current academic or practical context.
• Methodological Rigor: The study must employ appropriate research methodologies—qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Inadequate methodological approaches may lead to recommendations for revision or outright rejection.
• Potential for Citation: The work should exhibit scholarly merit and the potential to be referenced by other researchers within the discipline.
If a submission fails to meet these foundational requirements, it is not advanced to the peer review stage. In such cases, the author is promptly notified of the editorial decision and the reasons for non-selection.
1.3 Selection of Reviewers
If the initial evaluation is deemed satisfactory, the article is forwarded for detailed peer review by two reviewers, one selected from the editorial board and the other from the external reviewer pool. This review protocol applies equally to submissions authored by members of the Editorial Board.
2. Instructions for Reviewers
2.1. Confidentiality and Objectivity
Respect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and all aspects of the review process.
Refrain from disclosing or discussing manuscript content with individuals not directly involved in the evaluation.
Ensure that your review is impartial and focused solely on the scholarly merit of the work, avoiding any personal remarks or criticism directed at the author.
2.2 Timeliness
Submit your review within the designated timeframe. If you anticipate any delay, please notify the editorial office at the earliest opportunity.
2.3 Constructive Feedback as per the Feedback Form
Provide thoughtful and comprehensive feedback aimed at enhancing the quality of the manuscript.
Clearly identify its strengths and areas for improvement.
Recommend specific revisions and support your suggestions with well-reasoned explanations
2.4 Ethical Considerations
Verify that the manuscript complies with established ethical guidelines, including accurate citation of sources and the exclusion of plagiarism or unauthorized use of Generative AI tools.
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office without delay.
2.5 Evaluation Criteria
Originality
Assess whether the research introduces novel and meaningful insights. Determine if the work offers a fresh perspective or makes a substantial contribution to existing scholarship.
Relevance to the Field
Evaluate the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope and its significance within the broader humanities disciplines. Consider whether it addresses pertinent questions or challenges in the field.
Title
Review the suitability of the title. Recommend revisions if it does not accurately reflect the content or scope of the manuscript.
Abstract
Provide suggestions to enhance the clarity, coherence, and informativeness of the abstract.
Keywords
Assess the relevance and precision of the selected keywords in representing the core themes of the manuscript.
Introduction
Recommend improvements to the introduction, focusing on clarity, context-setting, and articulation of research objectives.
Theoretical Framework
Examine the appropriateness and depth of the theoretical foundation. Ensure the author demonstrates a strong grasp of relevant theories and integrates them effectively into the analysis.
Methodology
Evaluate the rigor and suitability of the research methods employed—qualitative, quantitative, or mixed. Confirm that the methodology supports the research objectives and is clearly articulated.
Discussion and Argumentation
Ensure the manuscript presents its arguments and findings with clarity and coherence. Verify that claims are substantiated through detailed analysis, supported by textual evidence and established critical perspectives.
Citation Practices
Confirm the use of inline citations in APA format. Check for accuracy and relevance, acknowledging that scholarly developments may influence citation validity.
Engagement with Scholarship
Ensure the manuscript incorporates both foundational and recent scholarship. If current research is not available in peer-reviewed articles, verify the use of credible alternative sources such as interviews, reviews, journalistic pieces, or news reports.
Structural Coherence
Check that the discussion is organized under appropriate subheadings to maintain thematic clarity and critical depth. Ensure that paragraphs are logically connected and contribute to the overall argument.
Objectivity and Bias Avoidance
Verify that the manuscript avoids first-person narration and personal pronouns. Ensure it maintains academic neutrality, refrains from activist rhetoric, and avoids gender, linguistic, cultural, or racial bias and exaggeration.
References
Review the relevance and currency of the references. Confirm that all points are integrated within the main body of the article, avoiding the use of endnotes or footnotes.
Attribution and Citation Integrity
Ensure all ideas, quotations, and borrowed content are properly attributed and cited using APA style.
Use of Copyrighted Material
Check that substantial excerpts from copyrighted sources are not used without explicit permission. Report any concerns to the editorial office.
Fair Use Compliance
Verify that any copyrighted material falls within fair use guidelines, particularly for educational or research purposes.
Plagiarism Prevention
Ensure the manuscript is free from plagiarism, with all sources properly acknowledged and the author’s original contribution clearly distinguished.
Reproduction of Visual Materials
Confirm that permissions have been obtained for any reproduced images, figures, or tables. Ensure proper source attribution is provided.
Self-Plagiarism
Check that the manuscript does not reuse previously published work without appropriate citation. Ensure that any reused content is properly acknowledged and does not constitute duplicate publication.
Adapted Material Permissions
Verify that permission has been secured for any adapted or modified content from copyrighted sources. Ensure the manuscript clearly indicates adaptations and includes accurate attribution.
2.6 Recommendation
Clearly indicate your recommendation to the editorial office in accordance with the Peer Review Template: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.
Support your decision with detailed comments and specific evidence drawn from the manuscript.
Use Microsoft Word’s built-in Review feature to insert your remarks directly into the document, ensuring that your User Name is anonymized prior to submission.
2.7 Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Declare any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of your review.