All the journals of Stecab Publishing follow a rigorous double-blind and peer-review policy, where the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential. This approach ensures an impartial evaluation of the manuscript, as reviewers assess the content without any bias related to the author's identity or affiliations.

1. Reviewer Selection Process

Reviewers are selected for each article based on their expertise in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The editorial team carefully chooses one or more most qualified reviewers who have relevant knowledge and experience in the specific area of the submitted article.

2. Reviewer Confidentiality

2.1. Anonymity: In a double-blinded review process, both the reviewer and the author's identities are concealed. Do not attempt to discover the author's identity or disclose your identity to the author.

2.2. Confidentiality of Manuscripts: Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process without explicit permission from the editorial office before the publication of the article.

3. Conflict of Interest

3.1. Disclosure: Inform the editorial office of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, or professional) that might bias the review.

3.2. Recusal: Recuse yourself from reviewing a manuscript if you have a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved.

4. Review Process

4.1. Evaluation Process: The journal follows a double-blind and peer-review process where the author and reviewer are both unknown to each other.

4.2. Timeliness: Complete the review within the allocated time frame, typically 2-4 weeks. If the reviewer needs an extension, promptly inform the editorial office.

4.3. Thoroughness: Provide a detailed and constructive review. Address the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

4.4. Objectivity: Base your review on objective criteria. Personal opinions should not influence your assessment.

5. Evaluation Criteria

5.1. Originality: Assess the novelty and originality of the research. Does it contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?

5.2. Significance: Evaluate the importance and impact of the research. Is the work relevant and significant to the field?

5.3. Methodology: Examine the research design and methodology. Are the methods appropriate, rigorous, and well-executed?

5.4. Clarity: Consider the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized?

5.5. Ethical Standards: Ensure the research adheres to ethical standards, including proper handling of data, ethical treatment of subjects, and declaration of conflicts of interest.

6. Reviewer's Feedback

6.1. Constructive Criticism: Offer constructive feedback that helps the author improve their work. Highlight both strengths and areas for improvement.

6.2. Specific Suggestions: Provide specific suggestions for revisions. Point out specific sections, figures, or data that require attention.

6.3. Tone and Language: Use a respectful and professional tone. Avoid harsh or dismissive language.

7. Reviewer's Recommendations

It is requested that the assigned reviewers provide descriptive feedback and objective comments on the manuscript's fairness, weaknesses, and scopes for improvement of the article. Based on the reviewer's evaluation, they make one of the following recommendations to the editorial team:

• 7.1. Accept Submission: This recommendation means the manuscript meets the journal's criteria and scopes and can be accepted for publication without major corrections.
• 7.2. Accept after Minor Revision: This suggestion states that the manuscript requires minor correction before publishing to address specific concerns raised by the reviewers
• 7.3. Major Revision Required: This decision maybe recommended when an article does not align with the journal criteria but can be improved by correcting a significant part of the article.
• 7.4. Decline Submission: This decision describes that the article does not comply with the journal policy and is not recommended to publish.

8. Editorial Decision

The final decision on the submission by the editorial team is based on the reviewers' recommendations and the assessment of the editorial team. The decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' comments to help them understand the rationale behind the verdict.

9. Post-Review Process

9.1. Revisions: If the manuscript is revised and resubmitted, be willing to review the revised version to ensure that your feedback has been addressed.

9.2. Feedback to Editors: Communicate any concerns or suggestions directly to the editorial office. If you believe a manuscript requires more extensive review, inform the editors.

10. Ethical Responsibilities

10.1. Plagiarism: Report any suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical concerns to the editorial office immediately.

10.2. Fairness: Ensure your review is fair and unbiased. Treat all manuscripts and authors with equal respect and consideration.

11. Reviewer Recognition

11.1. Acknowledgment: Your contributions as a reviewer are invaluable. We acknowledge and appreciate your efforts through certificates, acknowledgments in the journal, or other forms of recognition.

11.2. Professional Development: Participation in the review process offers opportunities for professional development, including staying current with the latest research and honing critical evaluation skills.