Peer Review Model.

The manuscript first undergoes a rigorous preliminary evaluation by the Managing Editor to ensure complete alignment with the journal's thematic scope and technical standards. This stage includes a comprehensive plagiarism audit using iThenticate/Turnitin, where a similarity threshold of less than 5% is strictly enforced.

Once a manuscript clears the initial audit, it is passed to the Associate Editor, who identifies and invites a minimum of three subject matter experts. Our assignment protocol utilises advanced citation mapping to select reviewers with high expertise relevance.

During this critical phase, reviewers conduct an in-depth technical autopsy of the research. This involves validating the experimental methodology, auditing the data sets for consistency, and assessing the novelty of the findings against existing scholarly literature.

Authors receive a consolidated report containing technical critiques and mandatory revision requests. The author must then prepare a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point rebuttal letter addressing every comment raised by the review panel.

The Editor-in-Chief performs the final audit of the revised manuscript and the associated reviewer recommendations to make a definitive publication decision. Upon final approval, the manuscript is assigned a permanent DOI and formatted for the official archive.