Review Guidelines

The journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Manuscripts are assessed solely on their academic merit, originality, and relevance, without consideration of the authors’ identities or affiliations.

This approach is designed to reduce bias, promote fairness, and uphold high scholarly standards. The peer review process is carried out in line with internationally recognized ethical guidelines and best practices in academic publishing, ensuring integrity, transparency, and credibility in all editorial decisions.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are entrusted with providing an independent, critical, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts within their area of expertise. The purpose of peer review is to support editorial decision-making and to assist in improving the scientific quality, clarity, and integrity of the manuscript.

Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and respectful in tone. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Reviewers are encouraged to identify both the strengths of the work and areas that require clarification, correction, or further development, with clear reasoning to support their comments.

Considerations Before Accepting a Review

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers are expected to assess the following:

Subject Expertise

Reviewers should accept review invitations only for manuscripts that fall within their academic or professional competence. If the subject matter does not sufficiently match their expertise, the invitation should be declined promptly through the review system.

Availability and Timeliness

Reviewers should ensure that they can complete the review within the specified timeframe (normally within one week). If timely completion is not possible, the editor should be informed without delay. Where appropriate, reviewers may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

Any potential conflict of interest—financial, professional, or personal—that could influence the review must be disclosed to the editorial office prior to undertaking the review. If there is uncertainty regarding a potential conflict, reviewers are encouraged to seek clarification from the editor.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to assess submissions based on the following key aspects:

Originality and Scholarly Contribution

Does the manuscript present novel findings or insights?
Does it make a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge?
Is the research question relevant and significant within the field?

Where appropriate, reviewers may consider the manuscript in relation to existing literature indexed in recognized databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science) and inform the editor of substantial overlap with previously published work.

Relevance to Journal Scope

Is the submission consistent with the journal’s thematic focus and academic objectives?

Presentation and Structure

Does the manuscript follow the journal’s author guidelines?
Is the content logically structured and clearly presented?

Assessment of Manuscript Sections

Title: Should accurately reflect the content of the study and indicate its scientific relevance.

Abstract: Should provide a concise and accurate summary of the objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions.

Introduction: Should clearly define the research problem, objectives, and context, with appropriate reference to relevant literature.

Methodology: Should describe the research design, data collection, sampling, and analytical procedures in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility. Methods should be appropriate to the research question.

Results: Should be presented clearly and logically, with appropriate statistical analysis. Interpretation should be reserved for the discussion section.

Discussion and Conclusion: Should interpret findings in relation to existing literature, explain their significance, and clearly state the contribution of the study. Conclusions must be supported by the reported results.

Tables and Figures: Should be relevant, clearly labeled, and accurately represent the data. Visual elements should enhance, not duplicate, the textual content.

Authors must prepare and submit manuscripts in accordance with the official ARC Publishing manuscript guidelines. Detailed instructions regarding formatting, ethics, and submission procedures are available at: https://www.arcpublishing.org/guidelines

Language and Clarity

The manuscript should be written in clear and professional English. If language issues significantly hinder understanding, reviewers should note this for editorial consideration.

Reviewer Reports and Written Feedback

Reviewers are requested to provide clear, detailed, and constructive comments intended to help improve the manuscript. Feedback should be divided into:

  • Comments for the Editor (confidential)
  • Comments for the Contributor(s)

Comments should be specific, actionable, and supported by clear justification.

Recommended Structure for Reviewer Comments

  • Summary of the manuscript’s contribution and strengths
  • Major issues requiring revision
  • Minor comments and suggestions
  • Assessment of originality and relevance
  • Evaluation of methodology and results
  • Comments on clarity, organization, and length
  • Remarks on the title and abstract
  • Potential implications for research, practice, or society

Review Recommendations

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor, taking into account all reviewer reports.

Ethical Standards and Conduct

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and associated materials must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted impartially and supported by academic reasoning.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited and report any substantial similarity to other publications.
  • Disclosure and Integrity: Information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal advantage, and manuscripts involving conflicts of interest should not be reviewed.