Double Blind Review: The review process will remain double-blind, with both the author's identity and the reviewers' identities kept confidential throughout the review process. This can be achieved by using a system where the manuscript is anonymized before being sent to the reviewers, and the reviewers' feedback is also anonymized when it is sent back to the author.

Assignment of Editors: The Editor-In-Chief will assign an editor and/or an Associate Editor to oversee the peer review process, granting that there is no conflict of interest with the author. The Editor-In-Chief may also oversee a peer review process, granting that there is no conflict of interest with the author.

Assignment of Peer Reviewers: The Editor-In-Chief, with the recommendation of the Associate Editors and the Editorial Board, will be responsible for assigning reviewers to each manuscript based on availability and expertise.

Invitation: The Editor-In-Chief will contact specific experts in the field and request their review of the submitted manuscript by sending a Peer Review Invitation Letter, which also includes a “Peer-Reviewer Agreement” that must be signed and returned to the Editor-In-Chief. The agreement includes a statement of confidentiality, an agreement to disclose any conflicts of interest, and a commitment to providing a timely and constructive review of the manuscript.

Reviewer Guidelines: Reviewers will be provided with the journal guidelines that will specify clear guidelines to reviewers on what to look for when evaluating a manuscript, including its originality, clarity, and contribution to the field. Reviewers are provided with a checklist. The Editorial Board may also set a deadline for reviewers to submit their feedback.

Editorial Board Oversight: The Editorial Board, alongside the Editor-In-Chief and the Associate Editors, may oversee the review process to ensure that it is fair, unbiased, and meets the journal's standards. The Editorial Board may also provide guidance to the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors on any issues that arise during the review process.

Review of Manuscript: The peer reviewer will assess the manuscript’s quality and relevance and provide feedback to the Editor. Based on the peer reviewer’s feedback, the Editorial Board will consult and decide on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript.

Revisions: If revisions are requested, the editor will send the manuscript back to the author with the peer reviewer’s feedback and request for revisions. The author will then revise the manuscript and resubmit it for another peer review round, or a final decision. The maximum number of peer review rounds that a manuscript may go through is two (2). After two (2) rounds, the manuscript will be rejected and will not be eligible for resubmission.

Acceptance of Manuscript: Once the manuscript is accepted, the Editorial Board will communicate the final decision to the author, at which point the manuscript will be prepared for publication.