Key Features of the Double-Blind Peer Review Process

• Authors' Anonymity: In the double-blind review process, the identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers. This means that any information in the manuscript or accompanying documents that could reveal the identity of the authors is removed or obscured.
• Reviewers' Anonymity: Similarly, the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. This ensures that the review process is free from any personal bias or influence that might arise from previous interactions or knowledge of the authors.

• When a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team for compliance with the journal’s scope and basic submission standards.
• Once it passes this initial screening, the manuscript is prepared for the review process, where any identifying information about the authors is removed.

• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and knowledge in the manuscript's subject area. The selection aims to match the manuscript with reviewers who have the necessary background to provide an informed and objective assessment.
• The journal ensures that there are no conflicts of interest between the reviewers and the authors. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a manuscript for review. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be recused, and an alternative reviewer will be selected.

• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit, originality, relevance to the field, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and the validity of conclusions drawn.
• They are unaware of the authors’ identities, preventing any preconceived notions or biases related to the authors' reputation, nationality, or institutional affiliation from influencing the review.

• Reviewers provide detailed feedback, comments, and recommendations. These can include suggestions for improvement, identification of weaknesses or gaps, and an overall evaluation of the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
• Recommendations typically include acceptance, revisions (minor or major), or rejection.

• The editor makes a decision based on the reviewers’ feedback. If revisions are required, the manuscript is sent back to the authors without revealing the reviewers' identities.
• Authors revise the manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it for further review, if necessary.

• After satisfactory revisions, the manuscript is either accepted for publication or rejected based on its overall quality and contribution to the field.
• The final decision rests with the editorial team, taking into account the reviewers’ assessments and the revised manuscript’s merit.