Peer-Review Process Statement

Peer-Review Process and Policy
Maintaining the highest ethical standards during the peer-review process is a priority for this journal. Therefore, the primary guidelines for this journal are COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and UMT Publication Policy. All submitted manuscripts undergo a peer-review process to guarantee their quality and compliance with academic standards.

1. Type of Peer-Review
This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation, please ensure the following when submitting to this journal:

Information to help prepare the Title Page
This should include the title, authors’ names, complete affiliations, and e-mail address for the corresponding author. Acknowledgements, conflict of interest statement, and author contributions statement are also placed on this page.

Information to help prepare the Main Document/Blinded Manuscript
This should include the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, conclusions, and references.

2. Reviewer Selection Process
The reviewers are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the submitted manuscript. Reviewers recommended by authors are welcomed by this journal, but they may not necessarily be used. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two expert reviewers, after which the Chief Editor will make a final decision.

3. Reviewer Reports
Reviewers must complete the Review Form, which includes the following requirements:

• Originality of topic
• Appropriateness of contents
• Suitability of research methodology
• Structure of data analysis (interpretation and results)
• Adequacy and relevance of references
• Presentation and organization of the manuscript
• Relevance/significance to the journal
• Overall quality and impact

Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but reviewers can suggest improvements to the manuscript's language and writing style. In some cases, authors may be required to carry out proofreading or comprehensive language revisions before resubmitting the manuscript. To ensure high-quality of the article, the publisher will appoint language editors to conduct detailed language editing after the article has been accepted for publication.

4. Peer-Review Process
The respective editor will invite two or more reviewers to review the manuscript. The potential reviewers are required to respond to the email invitation. The peer-review process begins when the appointed reviewers are assigned through Open Journal Systems (OJS). The reviewer will receive a notification via email regarding the assignment. They are required to complete the Review Form provided within the system, which includes providing comments on the manuscript. At the end of the process, the reviewers must provide recommendations as follows (choose only one):

1. Accept Submission
2. Revisions Required (Minor Revision/Major Revision)
3. Resubmit for Review
4. Resubmit Elsewhere
5. Decline Submission
6. See Comments

If the reviewer has submitted their comments through another platform or channel, the review file must also be uploaded into the system to ensure the review process continues smoothly and a proper record.

5. Duration of Review Process
The duration for the reviewers to complete the review process is two weeks.

6. Final Report and Decision
The editor will provide a recommendation of the manuscript based on the reviewers’ reports and suggestions. This recommendation will serve as an important reference for the Editor-in-Chief in deciding whether to accept or reject the manuscript.