Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor before being considered for external peer review. This screening evaluates the manuscript's suitability for the journal and its compliance with basic scholarly and editorial requirements.

The initial assessment considers:

• Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
• Relevance and clarity of the research problem, objectives, and scholarly contribution.
• Appropriateness of the research design, methodology, and analytical approach.
• Adequacy of evidence supporting the main findings and conclusions.
• Originality, research integrity, and compliance with publication ethics.
• Clarity and academic quality of the English-language manuscript.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned for preliminary revision or declined without external peer review. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation proceed to the reviewer selection stage.

2. Similarity Screening

The editorial team uses Turnitin to identify potential textual overlap during the initial editorial assessment, normally before manuscripts proceed to external peer review.

Similarity reports are evaluated contextually, considering the location, extent, nature, and sources of overlapping material. A numerical similarity score does not, by itself, establish plagiarism or determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.

When potentially problematic overlap is identified, the editorial team may request clarification, corrections, or revision before further evaluation. Serious concerns are handled in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy and Research Misconduct Policy .

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant disciplinary or methodological expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly competence, research experience, independence, and suitability for evaluating the manuscript. The handling editor also considers potential conflicts of interest before assigning a reviewer.

Reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise their impartiality. Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer must decline or withdraw from the assignment.

A third reviewer or an additional independent assessment may be requested when reviewer recommendations differ substantially or further specialist evaluation is necessary.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

APLIKATIF applies a double-blind peer-review model in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors during the review process.

Authors are required to prepare anonymized manuscript files and remove identifying information in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines. The editorial team takes reasonable steps to preserve reviewer anonymity and manuscript confidentiality.

Reviewers must evaluate assigned manuscripts independently, objectively, and constructively. Their reports should identify scholarly strengths, methodological limitations, weaknesses in evidence or interpretation, and specific improvements needed to strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript materials for personal or professional advantage.

5. Peer-Review Assessment Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to their article category, research approach, and intended scholarly contribution. The principal evaluation criteria include:

• Originality and Contribution: The relevance, novelty, and significance of the manuscript's contribution to existing scholarship.
• Research Problem and Objectives: The clarity, justification, and coherence of the research problem, questions, and objectives.
• Literature and Conceptual Foundation: The relevance, accuracy, and critical integration of previous research.
• Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness and transparency of the research design, data sources, procedures, and analytical methods.
• Results and Evidence: The adequacy, accuracy, and clarity of the evidence supporting the findings.
• Discussion and Interpretation: The extent to which interpretations are supported by evidence and meaningfully related to relevant scholarship.
• Conclusions and Implications: The consistency of conclusions with the study's objectives, findings, and acknowledged limitations.
• Academic Presentation and Integrity: The clarity of scholarly writing, accuracy of citations and references, and adherence to ethical standards.

For Review Articles, particular attention is given to the appropriateness of the review approach, transparency of literature selection, depth of critical synthesis, and contribution to conceptual, theoretical, or methodological understanding.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports alongside the manuscript's scholarly quality, methodological rigor, evidentiary support, and compliance with journal policies.

Editorial decisions may include:

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not automatically determine the editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for publication decisions, except where a conflict of interest requires independent handling.

7. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to address the editorial and reviewer comments carefully. Revised submissions should include:

• A revised manuscript reflecting the requested improvements.
• A point-by-point response explaining how each substantive reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.
• A reasoned explanation when the authors disagree with a particular recommendation.
• Any additional documentation or supporting analysis requested by the editorial team.

The handling editor evaluates the adequacy of the revision and determines whether additional external review is necessary. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or referred to other qualified reviewers where appropriate.

A request for revision does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. The final decision depends on whether the revised manuscript satisfactorily addresses the substantive concerns and meets the journal's standards.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted only after the responsible editor determines that it meets the journal's scholarly, methodological, and ethical requirements.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, formatting, and other necessary production procedures. Authors may be requested to review proofs and confirm the accuracy of the final publication materials.

Publication scheduling takes into account manuscript readiness, acceptance order, thematic relevance, and the journal's publication capacity. Authors' geographic origin, institutional prestige, and financial considerations do not determine scholarly acceptance decisions.

9. Confidentiality, Independence, and AI Use

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential scholarly materials. Editors and reviewers must protect unpublished research information, reviewer identities, and confidential editorial correspondence.

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from assignments where impartiality cannot be maintained. Conflicted editorial assignments are handled by an appropriately independent editor.

In accordance with the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy , reviewers are prohibited from using generative AI or other AI-assisted systems to conduct any part of manuscript review, including analyzing manuscript content, evaluating arguments or methods, drafting reviewer comments, or recommending editorial decisions.

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscript content, supplementary files, or confidential review correspondence to AI services. Reviewer assessments must reflect independent human scholarly judgment.

10. Appeals and Editorial Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they identify a substantive factual error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a potential procedural irregularity affecting the decision.

An appeal should clearly identify the manuscript and decision concerned, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting evidence.

Appeals are assessed on their merits and do not automatically result in a new peer-review process. Where appropriate, an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision may be assigned to evaluate the appeal.

The editorial office will communicate the outcome of the reconsideration following an appropriate assessment.

11. Related Editorial Policies

The peer-review process operates alongside the following journal policies:

• Author Guidelines
• Publication Ethics
• Plagiarism Policy
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy
• Research Misconduct Policy

The journal's editorial practices are informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .