Editorial Policies

Section Policies

• Open Access
• Open Submissions
• Indexed
• Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

General comments

• Summarize general comments in a separate MS Word file addressed to the authors.
• Provide feedback concerning the topic's relevance, the methodology, and the clarity of the rationale.
• In the final paragraph, make a publication recommendation

Use the current Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th Ed.) as your guide.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The journal adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Publication and authorship

• All submitted papers are subject to peer-review process by two or more reviewers.
• Reviewers consider relevance, soundness, significance, originality and readability of submitted paper
• The possible review decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, resubmission or rejection
• If the decision of editor is to resubmit the paper, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted

Authors' responsibilities

For transparency, authors need to include an author statement file outlining their individual contributions to the paper using the relevant CRediT roles: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Roles/Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing.
Authorship statements should be formatted with the CRediT role(s) first and initals of authors following. More details and an example

• It is expected from the journal that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
• By submitting the manuscript, the authors are certifying that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere and that the manuscript is not currently under review elsewhere.
• By submitting the manuscript, the authors are certifying that their manuscripts are their original work.
• Authors must identify all financial sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
• Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors, during or after publication

Reviewers' responsibilities

• Reviewers keep confidentiality of reviewed papers and treat them as privileged information.
• Reviews are conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the authors' work.
• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Reviewers inform the Editor in Chief's attention about substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed manuscript and others already published.
• Reviewers will inform the Editor in Chief if they have conflicts of interest resulting from competing interests.
• Helpful guides for conducting peer reviews can be found from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editors' responsibilities

• Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article considering the content.
• Editors guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
• Editors have appropriate information of a research's funding sources.
• Editors base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance.
• Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reasons for doing so.
• Editors preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
• Editors ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical standards.
• Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished.

Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members