Peer Review Policy

1. Double/Masked Peer Review: All manuscripts undergo a masked (also referred to as double‑blind) review process where authors’ identities are hidden from reviewers, and vice versa.
2. Editorial Pre-Screening: Manuscripts are first evaluated by the editor or associate editor for fit and scope. Only suitable submissions proceed to the peer review process.
3. Review Timeline: The standard review period is three months or less, providing timely initial feedback
4. Review Rigour: Scholars are encouraged to conduct a rigorous, methodologically sound, and objective assessment. Reviewers critique methodology, theoretical grounding, originality, relevance, and clarity.
5. Academic Integrity & Ethics: As per UGC guidelines, submissions must show originality, proper citation, and avoid plagiarism or unethical practices. Identification checking via tools like iThenticate may be performed.
6. Final Decision: Following reviews, outcomes may include acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection. Multiple rounds of review may be required for revisions.