All manuscripts are processed in accordance with international publication ethics and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. The journal applies a strict double-blind peer review system to ensure objectivity, transparency, and academic integrity.

 

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

The first evaluation is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is checked for relevance to the journal scope, basic scientific quality, formatting compliance, and ethical integrity. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be desk rejected without external review.

 

2. Conflict of Interest Control

In accordance with COPE guidelines, all editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to handling a manuscript. If a conflict exists (personal, institutional, financial, or academic), the manuscript is reassigned to another independent editor or reviewer to ensure impartiality.

 

3. Plagiarism and Ethical Screening

Before peer review, all submissions are checked using plagiarism detection systems. The editorial office also verifies compliance with ethical research standards, including proper citation practices and originality of the work.

 

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on originality, methodological rigor, scientific contribution, clarity, and relevance to sustainable development research.

 

5. Editorial Decision-Making

After receiving reviewers’ reports, the handling editor evaluates all feedback and makes a recommendation to the editorial board. Final decisions are made collectively by the editorial team.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept without revisions
• Minor revision required
• Major revision required (resubmission for further review)
• Reject

 

6. Revision and Re-Evaluation

If revisions are requested, authors must respond to all reviewer comments in detail and submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. Revised papers may be re-sent to reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the extent of changes.

 

7. Final Approval

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on scientific merit, reviewer recommendations, and editorial assessment.

Typical peer-review period: 4–8 weeks

Average time to first decision: 2–4 weeks

 

Conflict of Interest and Editorial Independence

In accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, the journal strictly enforces policies to prevent conflicts of interest at all stages of the editorial process.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a potential conflict of interest (financial, institutional, personal, or academic) with a submitted manuscript, they are required to fully recuse themselves from the editorial decision-making process for that submission.

In such cases, responsibility for handling the manuscript is transferred to a designated Senior Editor or an independent member of the Editorial Board with no conflict of interest. This editor assumes full authority over the peer review process and final editorial recommendation.

If necessary, an external guest editor may be appointed to ensure complete impartiality and compliance with ethical publishing standards.

This procedure guarantees that all editorial decisions are made objectively, transparently, and solely on the basis of academic merit, in line with international publication ethics standards.