The proceeding adheres to a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality and ethical standards. Key steps are outlined below:

1. Manuscript Allocation: Within one week after submission, the Editor-in-Chief assigns each manuscript to 2–3 independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the paper’s topic. Reviewers must declare no conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborations, institutional affiliations, or financial ties with authors) prior to participation.

2. Initial Screening (1 week): Reviewers conduct a preliminary check for compliance with formatting guidelines, structural completeness (abstract, methods, results, etc.), and thematic relevance. Manuscripts failing to meet basic standards are desk-rejected, with detailed feedback provided to authors.

3. In-Depth Evaluation (3 weeks): Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, data integrity, and contribution to the field. Evaluations include:

   • A categorical rating (Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject)

   • Constructive comments for improvement

   • A confidential recommendation to the Editor

4. Decision-Making & Conflict Resolution: The Editor consolidates reviews and resolves discrepancies through panel discussions. Final decisions prioritize both scholarly rigor and a target acceptance rate of [40%], which balances selectivity with support for emerging research. Borderline manuscripts may undergo additional review or statistical validation.

5. Author Notification: Authors receive a decision within 1-week post-review, including anonymized reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production; others may be invited to resubmit after revision (2-month revision window).

6. Revisions & Appeals: Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated within 2 weeks. Authors may appeal decisions with a point-by-point rebuttal, which triggers an independent audit by the Editorial Board.